THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.5282 OF 2009 O R D E R; This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 06.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.1013 of 2008 in I.A.No.1367 of 2007 in O.S.No.4 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, whereby and whereunder the learned II Additional District Judge dismissed the application filed under Order XXVI, Rule-1, r/w Section 151 CPC for appointment of a Commissioner to examine the witnesses for ascertaining the rents. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.4 of 2004. It is a suit for partition. A preliminary decree came to be passed. Thereafter the petitioner filed I.A.No.1367 of 2007 for ascertainment of mesne profits. It appears that the defendants filed A.S.No.697 of 2005 and moved AS.MP.No.889 of 2006, and this Court granted interim stay of passing the final decree alone. The order dated 5.10.2007 passed in A.S.MP.No.889 of 2006 reads as hereunder: “On 30.11.2005, this Court stayed passing of the final decree alone and directed all other proceedings can go on. The petitioner already filed an application before the lower Court for ascertainment of mesne profits. On ascertainment of such mesne profits, the appellant- respondents shall deposit the same to the credit of the suit within two months. Further, we made it clear that the petitioner will have a charge over the rents receivable towards her share from the suit schedule property, on ascertainment of mesne profits”. 3. She adduced evidence on her behalf. Subsequently, she filed I.A.No.1544 of 2007 under Order XXVI, Rule 1, r/w Section 151 C.P.C. to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to examine the witness with regard to the payment of monthly rents. The application filed by her came to be allowed and an Advocate namely T.Venugopala Rao came to be appointed as Commissioner by order dated 10.4.2008. The said order came to be assailed by the defendants by filing Civil Revision Petition No.1782 of 2008. The said Civil Revision Petition came to be allowed setting aside the order dated 10.4.2008 made in I.A.No.1544 of 2007. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “Under the impugned order, the learned Judge opined that without appointing a Commissioner, mesne profits cannot be determined, and, accordingly, appointed one T.Venugopala Rao, Advocate as Commissioner for petition purposes. The impugned order does not give any details. It is unfortunate that the learned Judge has not admitted to the petition averments or the objections raised by the defendants in their counter. The impugned order is bereft of any reasons and is also not clear as to for what purposes, the Advocate-Commissioner has been appointed. It was simply stated that one T.Venugopala Rao, Advocate was appointed as Commissioner for petition purposes. That apart, the petition is also not clear and the details of the tenants and neighbouring tenants of the suit schedule property, whom the plaintiff wants to be examined on her behalf, were not furnished. If really respondent/plaintiff wants to examine somebody on her behalf, she should have furnished all the details enlisting the witnesses to be examined and the purpose therefore. Further, the impugned order is not clear as to whether the Advocate- Commissioner was appointed only to ascertain the mesne profits or to examine the unnamed witnesses and the purpose therefore. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Court below does not stand scrutiny of law. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 10.4.2008, is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside, leaving liberty to the respondent/plaintiff to file a fresh application, furnishing all the details of the tenants whom she wants to be examined on her behalf, and the Court below shall consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders, after hearing both the parties”. 4. The respondents/defendants resisted the application by filing counter. 5. The learned Additional District Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the material brought on record, proceeded to dismiss the application by order dated 16.10.2009. Hence, this revision. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/caveator. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court did not raise any objection with regard to the filing of the application for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to examine the witnesses on earlier occasion and, therefore, the I.A.No.1367 of 2007 which has been filed for ascertainment of mesne profits is deemed to have been reopened for further evidence on behalf of the petitioner. A further submission has been made that this Court has given liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application in C.R.P.No.1782 of 2008 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner moved an application and in such case, it is impermissible for the learned Additional District Judge to dismiss the application. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/caveators supported the order impugned in the revision. 9. Indisputably, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1367 of 2007 for ascertainment of mesne profits. She adduced evidence on her behalf and her evidence came to be closed. Thereafter, the respondents also examined the witnesses and closed their evidence. The next step is stated to be hearing the arguments for the parties. While so, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1013 of 2008 under Order XXVI, Rule 1, r/w Section 151 C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The learned Judge dismissed the application on the ground that unless the petitioner files an application to reopen the case for her evidence, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to examine the tenants does not arise. Once the petitioner closed her evidence, any further evidence can be permitted only after the petition is reopened. Till it is not reopened, it is impermissible for the petitioner to adduce any further evidence, more so, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to examine the witness. The reasoning given by the learned Judge in dismissing the application does not warrant interference in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. __________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 9th November, 2009 PNV