THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4196 of 2009 22.01.2010 Between: Chennam Ramakrishna and another ….Petitioner AND Ganisetti Subba Rao and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4196 of 2009 ORDER: The plaintiffs instituted suit being O.S.No.441 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku. It is for declaration, possession of suit schedule property and for permanent injunction against defendants. To cut the long story short, they filed I.A.No.910 of 2000 for appointment of advocate commissioner to measure the boundary line. The Commissioner was appointed and submitted a report. The first respondent (first defendant) filed I.A.No.2778 of 2006 to wipe out or ignore the report of advocate commissioner. He also filed I.A.No.2720 of 2006 for appointment of another advocate commissioner to measure the lands in dispute. Both the I.As., were dismissed. Fist defendant then filed C.R.P.Nos.93 and 172 of 2007 before this Court. This Court dismissed both the civil revision petitions on 01.12.2008 observing that unless and until the Commissioner is examined and found that he has no knowledge of survey, the report submitted cannot be set aside nor a new commissioner can be appointed. It appears thereafter first defendant examined advocate commissioner in the Court, who admitted that he has no knowledge of survey. Therefore, first defendant filed I.A.No.717 of 2009 for appointment of survey knowing commissioner for taking entire survey of measurements of survey No.22 as per field measurement book and documents. The Court below appointed a new commissioner to take measurements of suit locality with the help of Mandal Surveyor, Deputy Inspector of Survey and title deeds of the parties only to the extent of measurements not covered by the report of the commissioner appointed earlier. The order of Court below dated 02.07.2009 in I.A.No.717 of 2009 is in challenge in this revision petition. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents. There cannot be any dispute that disposal of civil revision petition in favour of petitioners does not give finality to the litigation nor the error pointed out is incapable of being cured by appellate authority at belated stage. Therefore, civil revision petition is misconceived. Consequently, as pointed out by counsel for first defendant only when the Commissioner appointed earlier admitted that he has no knowledge of survey, first defendant filed I.A.No.717 of 2009 and therefore, appointment of new advocate commissioner – as observed by this Court in the civil revision petitions – cannot be said to be vitiated by any error. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 22.01.2010 pln