THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3327 of 2011 Dated 23rd September, 2011 Between: Byru Pullaiah and others …Petitioners And Raparthy Chandra Sekhar and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy Counsel for respondents: Smt.Demda Radhika The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 27.07.2011, in I.A.No.293 of 2011 in O.S.No.47 of 2011, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet. The respondents filed O.S.No.47 of 2011 for declaration that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule land and also for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and their servants etc., from interfering with their possession. In the plaint schedule, the respondents have shown 343 sq.yards and 370 sq.yards of open sites in Survey No.485 under item Nos.1 and 2 respectively. They filed I.A.No.293 of 2011 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property. In support of the said application, the respondents filed an affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that after obtaining necessary permission from the Gram Panchayat, Gandhi Nagar, a residential house in item No.2 of the suit schedule property was constructed and that the petitioners with the help of antisocial elements were making abortive attempts to dispossess them and are trying to dismantle the building and also damaged the boundary stones. The petitioners filed a counter affidavit resisting the said application. However, by the order under revision, the Court below has allowed the application and appointed the Advocate Commissioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, I am of the opinion that the Court below has committed a serious jurisdictional error in appointing the Advocate Commissioner ignoring the averment contained in the affidavit of the respondents that they have constructed a house contrary to the plaint schedule, in which, the property was described as an open site. Interestingly, even in the IA schedule, the respondents have described the property as open site. Therefore, the averment, on the basis of which, the respondents sought appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is in direct conflict with the plaint and the IA schedules. The Court below has ignored this crucial aspect and appointed the Advocate Commissioner. As such, the order under revision cannot be sustained and hence, the same is set aside. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.4777 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd September, 2011 VGB