THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3013 OF 2010 Date: 19-11-2010 Between Challa Ramesh …..Petitioner And Devireddy Lakshmi Reddy and another …..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3013 OF 2010 ORDER: In the suit O.S No. 311 of 2010 filed by the petitioner – plaintiff for permanent injunction, the second defendant who is the first respondent herein filed I.A No. 191 of 2010 under Order 26 Rule 9 and Section 151 CPC for appointment of an advocate commissioner to take the measurements of the plaint schedule property as well as written statement schedule mentioned property contending that an extent of Acs.14.12 cents of property was acquired by the Government for allotment to the Vijayawada Police Officers Cooperative Society and Award No.20/85 was also passed on 11-12-1985. Subsequently, the said acquired property was divided into house plots and he purchased an extent of 172.63 cents on plot No.2. According to him, the respondent – plaintiff even after acquisition of the same by the Government is claiming right over the said property and has included the said property in the schedule appended to the plaint as if it is his own property and, therefore, an advocate commissioner should be appointed to take measurements of his property, the first defendant’s property and the plaint schedule property to identify the location of the plaint schedule property. On allowing the I.A, the present revision is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an advocate commissioner cannot be appointed to gather the evidence. The facts as stated above warrants appointment of a commissioner. Even if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it will not attain finality and will not cause any injustice to the petitioner. On the commissioner filing a report, the petitioner will have an opportunity to file his objections and it is for the Court either to accept the commissioner’s report or to reject the same. Ultimately, if the suit is decided against the petitioner basing upon the commissioner’s report, the same is capable of being corrected in the appeal. Further, the case on hand does not fall under any of the two exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai[1]. In view of the same, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. The civil revision petition fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 19-11-2010 ks [1] 2003 (6) SCC 675