THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.965 OF 2010 DATED:21-01- 2011. Between Poona Shareefa … Petitioner-plaintiff And 1.Nazeer and another …Respondent-defendants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.965 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the docket order, dated 09-02-2010 in I.A.No.35 of 2010 in O.S.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the respondents house with its measurements and boundary description, was allowed. 2. Admittedly, the respondents/defendants filed written statement in the trial Court disputing the averments of the plaint. The suit was filed for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of the vacant site. The prayer sought for in the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the boundaries and measurements of the plaintiff’s house. But it is for the plaintiff to establish his case before the trial Court. So at that stage, the question of noting down the boundaries and measurements of the house of the plaintiff does not arise unless it is specially denied or disputed by the defendants in the trial Court as on the date of filing of the application for appointment of an advocate commissioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the revision itself is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner herein already filed an application under Section 115 CPC to review the order and the said application was dismissed and the remedy, if any, is to challenge the order of review. But this Court is unable to accept the said contention in view of the fact that the order under challenge is the main order. Review order need not be challenged because, the scope of review is very limited and it is only to know whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the defendants have not filed written statement. So at that point of time, question of appointment of an advocate commissioner does not arise. But, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the written statement was already filed. Even assuming for a moment that the defendants filed written statement, but still they have not specifically denied or disputed about the boundaries and the measurements of the house of the plaintiff in the counter filed by them in trial Court and therefore, question of appointment of an advocate commissioner does not arise. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 09-02-2010 in I.A.No.35 of 2010 in O.S.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:21-01- 2011 Hsd