IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3958 OF 2009 Between: Nettam Venkatesu ..... PETITIONER AND Shaik Shabeena Sulthana and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3958 of 2009 O R D E R : The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.917 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur. The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs, who filed the said suit for perpetual injunction. Pending the suit, the revision petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.824 of 2009 for appointment of an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features existing in the plaint schedule property and the same was allowed by the Court below on 28.07.2009 appointing one Sri P.Siva Shankar Reddy as advocate commissioner with a direction to file a report on or before 12.08.2009. However, the advocate commissioner returned the warrant of commission for certain reasons and filed a memo to that effect before the Court below. Pursuant thereto, the Court below by order dated 17.08.2009, dismissed I.A.No.824 of 2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is field. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Even assuming that the advocate commissioner had returned the warrant of commission on certain grounds, it is always open to the Court below for granting extension of time or for appointing any other advocate commissioner. However, dismissal of the application itself, that too without assigning any reasons therefor, is unwarranted and unjustified. In the circumstances, the order dated 17.08.2009 is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to pass appropriate orders afresh after hearing both the parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _____________ Date: 05.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J. Ivd