THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI C.R.P.M.P.No. 3987 of 2009 AND C.R.P.No. 1865 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.M.P.No. 3987 of 2007 Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, taking into consideration the no objection from the respondent’s side, implead petition is ordered. C.R.P. No. 1865 of 2007 The present Revision Petition is filed against the orders of the learned IX Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (F.T.C.) in I.A. No. 687 of 2006 in O.S.No.3308 of 2004, dated 19.2.2007. Brief facts of the revision are that: The petitioner has filed a petition I.A.No.687 of 2006 before the lower Court for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property and to prepare a plan to that effect. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court has allowed the petition appointing Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property, and to prepare a plan of the suit schedule property, and also to obtain necessary photographs of the suit schedule property. As can be seen from the order under revision that the trial court find that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/defendant, if Advocate-Commissioner is appointed. Under the above circumstances, I find that the matter is required to be remanded to the lower Court for passing appropriate orders on merits after hearing both the parties. In the result, the Revision is allowed and the matter is remanded to the lower Court and the lower Court shall pass appropriate orders on merits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order after hearing both the parties. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J 8.10.2009 CHV