HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1716 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur, in I.A.No.379 of 2009 in O.S.No.26 of 2008, dated 20.01.2010, whereby a petition filed, under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for appointment of an Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Mahaboobnagar for the purpose of demarcation of the lands in Sy.Nos.59, 62 and 63 was dismissed. The respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2008 for permanent injunction. When the trial was in progress, I.A.No.379 of 2009 was filed for the aforementioned relief and the same was rejected. Though notice was served on the respondent, the respondent has not chosen to enter appearance either in person or through counsel. Heard. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court below proceeded on the assumption that a survey was conducted on an earlier occasion by the surveyor, who submitted his report, and, as such, there is no need to appoint the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Mahaboobnagar. According to him, there was no survey ever conducted by the office of the Survey and Land Records and, even if, any survey has been done, the same was without any notice and behind the back of the petitioner. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the grounds in the revision, wherein it is specifically stated that the petitioner was not served with any notice. Heard. In the order dated 20.01.2010, which is impugned in this revision petition, the Court below observed that the lands were already surveyed by the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Mahaboobnagar, on 30.10.2009 and the said survey was only after service of notices on 26.10.2009. No doubt, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice was served on the petitioner, but, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court below. If the petitioner was not put on notice and the survey was conducted behind his back, he should have stated so in the application in I.A.No.379 of 2009. From a perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.379 of 2009, the grounds urged therein are altogether different but not on the grounds of non-service of notice and the survey being conducted behind his back. The petitioner, for the first time, has taken the plea that no notice was served on him while conducting survey to the lands in question. From the impugned order, it is clear that the survey was conducted on 30.10.2009 only after service of notices on 26.10.2009. Hence, this Court is of the view that the pleas taken by the petitioner that no notice was served on him and the survey was conducted behind his back have been invented only for the purpose of this revision. I see no reason to interfere with the order under revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J Dt:09-08-2010 usd