THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5244 of 2011 Date:23rd December, 2011 Between: Chilekampalli Konda Reddy S/o.V.Konda Reddy & Ors. ..... Petitioners/Plaintiffs AND Somireddy Jayachandra S/o.Jojappa & Ors. .....Respondents/Defendants *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5244 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 04.11.2011, passed in I.A.No.858 of 2011 in O.S.No.140 of 2011 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior civil Judge appointed an advocate-commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and note down the physical features existing therein. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.140 of 2011 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel. The plaintiffs filed the suit for perpetual injunction. The defendants entered appearance and filed I.A.No.858 of 2011 under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and to note down the physical features existing therein and to draw a plan. The 4th plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to appoint an advocate commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and to note down the physical features existing therein, by order dated 04.11.2011. Hence, this revision by the plaintiffs. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs and perused the order impugned in the revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the trial has not yet been commenced and therefore, it is pre- mature for the defendants to move any application seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner. 5. The contention advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs appears to be sound on first blush, but on close scrutiny of the order impugned in the revision, I do not detain myself long to reject the same. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.858 of 2011, the defendants specifically pleaded that there are two wells, tombs and residential houses in the suit schedule property. For better appreciation, I may refer relevant portion of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.858 of 2011, which reads as hereunder: “The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit against me and others for permanent injunction. The respondents have misrepresented the facts that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. I submit that the suit land is a INAM land for our caste people and we are in possession and enjoyment of the suit land from our ancestral. There are two wells for irrigation and one drinking water well and one bore and tombs of our ancestral are existing in the suit land. At present cotton standing crop is in existing in the suit land. There are residential houses and kottams are existing in the suit land. The respondents are not at all in possession of the suit land. The respondents have suppressed the real facts and filed the suit for wrongful gain. If the Honourable Court has appointed an advocate commissioner to note the above features, then the facts will come out.” The 4th plaintiff filed counter opposing the said application. It is stated in the counter that the advocate commissioner cannot be appointed to gather evidence. As could be seen from the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.858 of 2011, the defendants specifically pleaded existence of various structures in the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs denied of the said structures in the suit schedule property. What is sought for by the defendants in the application, is appointment of an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. If the advocate-commissioner visits the suit schedule property, and makes note of the structures, oral evidence can be avoided to a large extent. The trial Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to appoint an advocate commissioner. There is no illegality or irregularly in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:23rd December, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5244 of 2011 Date:23rd December, 2011