HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.749 of 2010 Dated: 05-03-2010 Between: Kinnera Rambai & another. … Petitioners And Sadavala Kattamma & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.749 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.719 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, aggrieved by the docket order, dated 23rd December 2009, passed in the said suit. 2. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff for grant of perpetual injunction. Pending the suit, the 1st respondent sought for interim injunction, which was granted by the trial Court. As against the same, the petitioners preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.72 of 2008, before the Principal District Court, Warangal. The appellate Court disposed of the appeal, by an order dated 27.02.2009. The operative portion of the order of the appellate Court reads as follows : “For the foregoing reasons, I partly allow the C.M.A., but without costs, modifying the impugned order of interim injunction to that of status quo ante suit and direct the trial Court to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner to measure the plinth area of the houses along with adjacent open spaces held by both the parties, who are at liberty to adduce such oral and documentary evidence and dispose of the suit itself, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order.” 3. The impugned docket order, dated 23rd December 2009, is passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, appointing Advocate-Commissioner to measure the plinth area of the house in question, in view of the orders passed by the appellate Court. In this civil revision petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners did not ask for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner at any time. However, it is to be noted that the impugned order, dated 23rd December 2009 is a consequential order, passed as per the directions issued by the appellate Court i.e. the Principal District Judge, Warangal, in C.M.A.No.72 of 2008. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any challenge to the order, dated 27.02.2009, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal, in C.M.A.No.72 of 2008, I do not find any illegality in the docket order, dated 23rd December 2009, passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in O.S.No.719 of 2008. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 5th March 2010 ajr