IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5946 OF 2008 AND 5950 OF 2008 C.R.P.No.5946 of 2008: Between: Smt. Narapuraju Seetha Ram Bai .....PETITIONER AND Sri A. Chandra Sekhar and others ....RESPONDENTS C.R.P.No.5950 of 2008: Between: Smt. Narapuraju Seetha Ram Bai .....PETITIONER AND Sri A. Chandra Sekhar and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5946 OF 2008 AND 5950 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.5946 of 2008, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 08.12.2008, in I.A.No.3251 of 2008 in O.S.No.885 of 1998, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to appoint Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, as Commissioner to localize the petition schedule property and to find out whether the same is in Survey No.92 of Mansoorabad Village or in Survey Nos.12 to 16 of Tummabowli Village, was dismissed. 2. C.R.P.No.5950 of 2008, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 08.12.2008, in I.A.No.2145 of 2005 in O.S.No.885 of 1998, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to localize the petition schedule property and to find out whether the same is in Survey No.92 of Mansoorabad Village or in Survey Nos.12 to 16 of Thummabowli Village, was closed. 3. Heard. 4. The Court may in any suit issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make local investigation and to report thereon for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. The object of local investigation is not so much to collect evidence, which can be taken in Court, but to obtain evidence, which from its very peculiar nature can be had only on the spot. Such evidence enables the Court to properly and correctly understand and assess the evidence on record and clarifies any point, which is left doubtful. It helps the Court in deciding the question in controversy pending before it. 5. The suit was filed for injunction simplicitor. The identity of petition schedule property is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that as per orders in I.A.No.2145 of 2005, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for survey and demarcation of petition schedule property with the help of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. In pursuance thereof, the Commissioner conducted survey in the presence of parties and their counsel and filed the report. If the Advocate Commissioner has not conducted the survey of the property, the parties and their counsel would have raised objections. At the time of execution of warrant, no objections of whatsoever were raised. Petitioner kept quite for three years after filing of report. When the suit is coming up for arguments, the present applications are filed. The trial Court dismissed I.A.No.3251 of 2008 on the ground that at the time of executing the warrant by the Commissioner, both the parties have not raised any objections with regard to the identity of the property. As the property in question was already surveyed by the Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, and a report was filed, if the petitioner seeks any clarification in respect of any findings in the report, the petitioner is at liberty to summon and examine the Advocate Commissioner as well as the Assistant Director. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Advocate Commissioner as well as the Revenue Officials have not measured the land according to the Tippan Book. But, the Advocate Commissioner has categorically stated in the report that the Tippan Book has been torn and therefore, they could not get the help of Tippan Book in measuring the land. In view of the fact that a Commissioner had already been appointed at the instance of the petitioner and others; surveyed the land with the assistance of the Revenue Officials and submitted the report, the question of appointing another Commissioner or the same Commissioner does not arise for the same purpose. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J February 07, 2011 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5946 OF 2008 AND 5950 OF 2008 February 07, 2011