IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH (16TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2891 of 2010 Between: Kapuganti Satya … Petitioner And: Gampa Vishnu (Died) & another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2891 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 23.06.2009 in IA No.527 of 2009 in I.A.No.1022 of 2008 in OS No.70 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, S. Kota, wherein, the said application filed by the petitioner herein for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to make local inspection and to note down the physical features, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the 2nd respondent, though served with notice. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit against the respondent for declaration and injunction with regard to suit rastha between points ‘A, B,C,D,E,F and G’ of the plaint plan. The defendants filed written statement, denying the existence of rastha and contending that there is another rastha, providing the access to the plaintiff to the main road. On an application filed by the plaintiff, the trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property and also availability of rastha. The Advocate Commissioner, after making local inspection submitted her report. The plaintiff filed objections to the said report. The plaintiff has filed the present application in IA No.527 of 2009 seeking re-entrustment of the warrant to the Advocate Commissioner for clarifying certain aspects in the report, which according to the plaintiff are ambiguous and which are pointed in the objections to the Commissioner’s report. The respondents opposed the said application on the ground that it was filed only to protract further proceedings in the suit when it reached the stage of arguments. The learned Junior Civil Judge, after duly considering the objections raised by the plaintiff with reference to the report of the Commissioner, held that there is no ambiguity in the report of the Advocate Commissioner and it is open to the plaintiff to examine the Commissioner in Court and seek clarification, if any required. 4. The warrant was admittedly executed in the presence of both the parties. The Advocate Commissioner has noted all the physical features and filed a report with reference to the rough sketch filed by the plaintiff. The fact that no separate sketch is filed by the Commissioner is not a ground for re-entrustment of the warrant. It is also noted by the Commissioner that there is a small pathway leading towards northern side road of Venkateswara theatre with cement flooring. As contended by the plaintiff, whether it is a rastha or it is only a small pathway, is a matter to be considered with reference to other evidence available on record at the conclusion of the trial. The learned Junior Civil Judge has rightly observed that the petitioner cannot enlarge the scope of the commission so as to secure evidence. As the learned Junior Civil Judge has found that all the objections raised by the petitioner have been answered by the Commissioner in her report, there is no need to re-entrustment of the warrant to the Commissioner that too, at the stage when the suit stands posted for hearing arguments. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge does not call for any interference by this Court. It is open to the petitioner-plaintiff to examine the learned Advocate Commissioner as a witness in the Court and seek clarification, if any, pertaining to the Commissioner’s report. There are no valid or sufficient grounds for re-entrustment of the warrant to the Commissioner. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 16.08.2010 bss