HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3269 OF 2010 Dated 27-10-2010 Between: Ravi Netaji. …Petitioner. And: V.Shyam Prasad. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3269 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 15-6-2010 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad in I.A.No.1046 of 2008 in O.S.No.3 of 2007. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant before the Court below. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Court below for the sake of convenience. When the matter is taken up for hearing, both the counsel consented for disposal of the main C.R.P itself. Originally, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.3 of 2007 before the Court below seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his relatives, henchmen and supporters etc., from interfering with his possession over the suit land by demolishing the compound wall and also restraining them from illegally occupying the road area and costs. During the pendency of the present suit, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.1046 of 2008 in O.S.No.3 of 2007 seeking to appoint commissioner to note down physical features, record measurements and demarcate the properties of defendant and plaintiff with the help of the Municipal surveyors and authorities. The Court below having observed that when the defendant became ready to measure his lands and for noting down the physical features of his constructions, the relief for appointing the Commissioner cannot be rejected, allowed the application appointing Sri M.Naresh Kumar, Advocate as Court-Commissioner to note down the physical features record measurements and demarcate the properties of defendant and plaintiff as described in the schedule with the help of Municipal surveyors and authorities. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the plaintiff. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant and perused the material available on record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the Court below ought to have seen that advocate commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence and more so when the evidence on record is sufficient to answer all the issues involved in the suit. Apart from that, it is his further contention that the appointment of advocate commissioner will not serve any useful purpose as measurement of one or two plots in the layout will not give any picture about the actual measurements and location of the plots and hence, the order impugned needs interference and the same is liable to be set aside by allowing this revision petition. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the defendant that the order impugned is justified and hence, it needs no interference by this Court. The main grievance of the plaintiff is that when the evidence on both sides is completed and the main suit itself is posted for arguments, the appointment of commissioner is not necessary at this stage and apart from that, earlier petition in I.A.No.160 of 2007 was dismissed when the defendant sought the same relief and hence, the order impugned needs interference by this Court. A perusal of the material available on record goes to show that defendant examined D.W.4 who is adjacent owner of the plaintiff and produced Ex.X.1 his title deed to show non-existence of alleged road in dispute. Further, in addition to this, the defendant intends to bring on record the commissioner report for locating and demarcating the suit properties to resolve their boundary dispute conclusively. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff cannot oppose the contention of the defendant for appointment of commissioner to measure, record physical features and demarcate the properties. Apart from that, it is an appropriate stage for appointment of Commissioner as rightly observed by the Court below. In this background of the matter, I feel that the Court below has not committed any error in passing the order impugned. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Court below and as such, this C.R.P. is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this C.R.P. is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 27-10-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3269 OF 2010 Dated 27-10-2010