HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.74 OF 2008 AND 72 OF 2008 Date:08-07-2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.74 OF 2008: Between: Puvvada Srinivas S/o. Late Bhaskara Rao and another …. Petitioners AND P.Ch. Satyanarayana Murthy s/o. Late Surya Prakasa Rao and others …. Respondents CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.72 OF 2008: Puvvada Srinivas S/o. Late Bhaskara Rao and another …. Petitioners AND P.Ch. Satyanarayana Murthy s/o. Late Surya Prakasa Rao and others …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.74 OF 2008 AND 72 OF 2008 COMMON RDER: Since both these revisions, which are filed by the Judgment Debtor Nos.4 & 5 in E.P. No.324 of 2007, are between the same parties, they are being heard together and taken up together for disposal. CRP No.74 of 2008: 2. In the revision petition, the petitioners raised an objection at the threshold of the proceedings itself as to maintainability of the E.P. No.324 of 2007 laid by respondent Nos.1 to 3 / Decree Holders in pursuance of the decree for injunction. 3. It is pertinent to note that the present revision is filed only on the ground of entertaining the E.P before the Court below. 4. If that being the case, it is needless to state that at the threshold of the proceedings itself, the petitioners cannot approach this Court at the premature stage. However, since the proceedings are at threshold, it is always open for the petitioners to raise all the objections before the trial Court that have been raised before this Court. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merits in this revision petition to entertain the same. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition No.74 of 2008 is dismissed. No order as to costs. CRP No.72 of 2008: 5. In this revision petition, the same petitioners seeks to assail the order dated 03-12-2007 in E.A. No.1244 of 2007 in E.P. No.324 of 2007, whereby the trial Court allowed the application filed by respondents 1 to 3 / Decree Holders seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for local inspection and to find out the person in possession of the suit schedule property, contending that the request sought for, itself is not maintainable. 6. There cannot be any exercise by any Court to have a local inspection of the property by appointing a Commissioner to find out as to who is in possession of the same. The application is totally misconceived and the same cannot be entertained. 7. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition No.72 of 2008 is allowed and the order dated 03-12-2007 in E.A. No.1244 of 2007 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram is set aside, dismissing the application. No order as to costs. __________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J July 08, 2010 KTL