IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.838 of 2010 Between: Mr.A.S.N. Gandhi ... PETITIONER AND Meru Automobiles (Private) Limited, Kurnool rep. by Mr.Shaik Vali Saheb and another ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This court ordered notice before admission on 05-03-2010 and granted interim stay for a limited period. 2. CRPMP No.1621 of 2010 is filed to vacate the interim order. The learned counsel representing the petitioner – defendant had taken this court through the contents of the order under challenge and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, appointment of Commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining factum of possession would amount to gathering of evidence and hence, the said order cannot be sustained. 3. Learned counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the appointment of Commissioner in a suit for specific performance cannot make an order of this nature of appointing Commissioner. The learned counsel also would maintain that under the guise of noting down the physical features it is impermissible to have a Commissioner appointed for the purpose of collecting evidence in relation to the factum of possession. The learned counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions. 4. Per contra Sri A. VeeraSwamy, the learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 – the vacate petitioners would submit that the Commissioner already had executed the warrants and even otherwise it is only to note down the physical features and not for the purpose of gathering evidence. In the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool in I.A.No.7 of 2010 in O.S.No.4 of 2010 it is not a fit matter to be interfered with. The learned counsel also relied on certain decisions. 5. Heard the learned counsel on record. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner – respondent – defendant being aggrieved by an order made in I.A.No.7 of 2010 in O.S.No.4 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool. It is no doubt true that the wording of the order as such had not been happily worded. It is also true that the aspect whether the possession was given or not to be ascertained for the purpose of injunction petition, these words no doubt may give indication that the appointment of Commissioner is for the purpose of collecting evidence relating to factum of possession. 7. Strong reliance was placed on certain decisions reported in Madhu Sudan Pradhan and others v. Santosh Kumar Das[1], Vinod Kumar v. Puran Chand and another[2], Union of India and another v. Kripal Industries[3], Puttappa v. Ramappa[4] and Bongu Ramulu v. Gudur Narender Reddy[5]. 8. It is a suit for specific performance and the recitals made in the agreement of sale also had been pointed out and certain submissions had been made. Inasmuch as the relief prayed for in the application is for noting down the physical features. The words used by the learned Judge as such in the order under challenge need not detain this court any further. It is clarified that the appointment of Commissioner is only to note down the physical features and whether the noting down of the physical features would have any direct impact on the other aspects, these may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage. It is suffice to state that liberty is given to the parties to file appropriate objections to the report of the Commissioner in this regard. 9. With the above observation the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J April 01, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.838 of 2010 April 01, 2010 [1] AIR 2004 ORISSA 86 [2] 2002 A I H C 4135 [3] AIR 1998 RAJASTHAN 224 [4] AIR 1996 KARNATAKA 257 [5] ALD 3 (1998) 657