THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO. 3118 OF 2009 23-10-2009 BETWEEN; Kondamuru Anjaneyulu ...Petitioner vs. A.V.Ramaih and two others. ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.3118 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: The 1st defendant in O.S.No.94 of 2007 assails the order of the cou of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki dated 23.06.2009 i I.A.No.803 of 2007. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit for permanent injunction against the revision petitioner and two others an thereat I.A.No.544 of 2007 for temporary injunction. Status quo orders wer granted in I.A.No.544 of 2007. The plaintiff also filed I.A.No.543 of 200 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. That application wa ordered and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed who inspected th suit schedule premises, a residential property, apparently in the presenc of the plaintiff and the respondents on 25-04-2007 and filed his report wit an annexed plan. In I.A.No.803 of 2007 an application filed under Section 151 CPC, the revision petitioner requested the court to refer hi objections to the Commissioner’s report to the Commissioner for hi response. The Court below rejected the above plea and dismissed I.A.No.80 of 2007. The Court held that the first objection by the revision petitioner t the Commissioner’s report is that the Commissioner did not notice that th house was locked and that the 1st respondent had opened the lock of th house at the direction of the Commissioner. The Commissioner’s repo noted the presence of the defendants at the time of execution of th warrant of the commission, but with regard to the locking of the house or it opening the report is silent. However, the Commissioner stated in hi report that it is not clear who has title and possession of the suit schedul property. The second objection was that the Commissioner ought to hav observed that a passport size photo and gunny bag bundle with the nam of the plaintiff written was brought and kept after diverting the attention o the Commissioner. The third objection was that the Commissioner did no properly execute the warrant or note the other material of the firs defendant in the house. The court below rejected the application seekin in substance the cross examination of the Commissioner on the content of his report as an exercise in triviality and that that legal process provide for no such extravagance. As the petitioner’s objections have been lodged to th Commissioner’s report, the Court would consider the same whil considering the weight to be attached to the report. The order of th Court below rejecting I.A.No.803 of 2007 suffers from no infirmit warranting revisional interference under Article 227 of the Constitution o India. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as t costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 23rd OCTOBER 2009. TSNR