THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 434 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 14.12.2009 in I.A. No.115 of 2008 in O.S. No.16 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool district. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs, and the respondents herein are the defendants, in Original Suit No.16 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. The suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction. The defendants filed the present interlocutory application no.115 of 2008 in the suit under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the schedule property, note down physical features thereof and file report. The trial court allowed the application vide order dated 21.07.2008 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the property in dispute. The plaintiffs challenged the said order by way of filing Civil Revision Petition No.3291 of 2008 before this Court. This Court, by its interim order dated 12.08.2008 granted interim stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the order impugned therein, and thereafter, allowed the Civil Revision Petition by order dated 05.09.2008, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the trial court with a direction to hear the parties and dispose of the application afresh in accordance with law by recording reasons. Mean while, the Advocate Commissioner executed the warrant on 2.8.2008. 4. The grievance of the petitioners herein is that when the date is fixed by the Advocate Commissioner for inspection of the schedule property, their counsel requested time, but without giving an opportunity, the Commissioner executed the warrant. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the trial court is directed to re-entrust the warrant to the same Advocate Commissioner for execution after giving notice to both the parties. It is made clear that the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner is only for the purpose of noting down the physical features of the property in dispute, but not to collect evidence, and that the earlier report filed by him cannot be used for any other purpose. It is also made clear that the Advocate Commissioner’s fee shall be borne by the petitioners herein. 5. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. _____________ (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 1.3.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 434 OF 2010 1.3.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 434 OF 2010 1.3.2011 Between: Phaniraju Puranik & another …Petitioners And M.Sathyanarayana Raju & another …Respondents