HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.5260/2007 DT.19-11-2010 Yarlagadda Satyanarayana …Petitioner V. 1. Gavirneni Siva Naga Malleswari and another ..Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.5260/2007 ORAL ORDER: This revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendant in the suit to revise the orders passed by the Junior Civil Judge at Nuzvid dt. 13-9-2007 in IA No.248/2007 in OS OS.37/2007. The respondents-plaintiffs filed the petition seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features. The trial court appointed an advocate-commissioner, who executed warrant on 18-3-2007. After execution of the warrant by the advocate-commissioner, the defendant trespassed into the schedule land forcibly in spite of temporary injunction granted in IA No.102/2007 and started to fix bamboo sticks and other wooden poles in the schedule property to the immediate West of the Eastern row of the oil palm trees situated in the schedule property and to the west of the defendant’s alleged land, making attempts to erect barbed iron wires with the said poles. Therefore, the Advocate-Commissioner may be re- directed to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property subsequent to execution of the warrant by the Commissioner on 18-3-2007. On contest by the defendant, the trial court allowed the petition and directed the Advocate-commissioner to inspect the petition schedule property afresh; to note down the new physical features in the schedule property and to draw rough sketch of the same after issuing notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since objections to the commissioner’s report were already filed, appointing an advocate-commissioner to note down the physical features again does not arise and the impugned order directing the commissioner to inspect the schedule property is liable to be set-aside. The impugned order passed by the trial court re-directing the an advocate commissioner to inspect and to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property afresh is a discretionary order and there is no ground for the petitioner-defendant to question the said order at this stage. Inasmuch as the impugned order will not attain finality and nor will cause any prejudice to the petitioner-defendant since he will have a right to file objections to the report, if any, filed by the Commissioner and on filing such objections, the court may accept or may not accept the report. The present case does not fall under any of the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court in SURYA DEV RAI V. RAM CHANDER RAI (2003) 6 SCC 675), where if the order allowed to stand will earn immunity from correction at a later stage either in the appeal or suit. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, the Advocate-Commissioner, so appointed, shall issue notice before execution of the warrant, and shall note down the changed physical features, if any, according to the work memos, if any, filed by the parties. No costs. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date:19-11-2010 kmr