THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1827 of 2011 Date:06th September, 2011 Between: 1. Shaik Abdul Waheed & Anr. ..... Petitioners AND 1. Syed Jaleel & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1827 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 01.04.2011, passed in I.A.No.113 of 2011 in O.S.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Lakkireddipalli, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner to measure the suit schedule property and note down the physical features and to fix the boundaries of the suit schedule property. 2. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 24.06.2011. Despite notice being served on the respondents, they did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material brought on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the appointment of advocate commissioner is necessary to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property and therefore, dismissal of the application filed by the petitioners by the trial Court is not justified. 5. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The petitioners/plaintiffs have not stated anywhere as to existence of any physical features which the Commissioner is required to note. The trial Court, after considering the conduct of the petitioners, made an observation that the petitioners/plaintiffs moved the application to protract the litigation. Since the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to mention the existing physical features of the suit schedule property in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the application. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:06th September, 2011 cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1827 of 2011 Date:06th September, 2011