THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.923 of 2011 Dated: 1-04-2011 Oral Order: This revision is directed against the docket order dated 9-12-2010 which reads as under: “Since the main appeal is disposed of this petition is closed.” I.A.No. 2879 of 2010 filed by the petitioner herein in C.M.A.No. 23 of 2010 (preferred by her against an order in O.S.No. 789 of 2009 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry); an appeal directed against the order of the trial court declining to grant temporary injunction. In I.A.No. 2879 of 2010 in the C.M.A, the petitioner sought appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to record the physical features of the schedule property. The C.M.A. was dismissed on 9-12-2010 and thereafter the I.A. was closed. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that since her application for appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner was closed by the appellate court, she may be disentitled to file a similar application for appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner in the suit, to record the physical features of the suit schedule property. The above apprehension of revision petition is misconceived, as the I.A. was closed in view of the dismissal of the miscellaneous appeal the said order would not per se bar a similar application being preferred by the petitioner in O.S.No. 789 of 2009. However, whether such an application for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to gather evidence in support of the plaintiff’s case could be made and granted is another question. In the aforesaid circumstances, there are no merits in the revision and it is accordingly dismissed. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 1st April, 2011. GRR