THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4102 of 2010 Date:15th March, 2011 Between: Mohd. Azeemuddin ..... Petitioner AND 1. Mohd. Hassan Mohiuddin & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4102 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 01.07.2010, passed in I.A.No.308 of 2010 in I.A.No.500 of 2008 in O.S.No.100 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereby and whereby the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Section 151 CPC. 2. The respondents 1 to 5 herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.100 of 2008. They filed the suit for injunction in respect of Ac.5.20 guntas comprising Survey Nos.340/A, 340/EE, 340/U and 340/A/3. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement resisting the suit. It is the claim of the defendants that they are in possession of Ac.1.20 guntas in Survey No.337/2/AA. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.500 of 2008 for appointment of an advocate commissioner to identify and localize the suit schedule property. The application filed by the plaintiffs came to be allowed. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the suit schedule land and submitted his report, dated 22.03.2010. Thereupon, the defendants filed objections to the Commissioner report. Pending consideration of the objections, the defendants filed I.A.No.308 of 2010 under Section 151 CPC seeking the following relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon’bnle Court may be pleased to direct the Advocate- Commissioner appointed in this case to re-call the Dy.Director (Survey & Land Records), Hyderabad, to complete the survey of Sy.No.337/2/AA, belonging to the petitioners/ defendants in the case, so as to enable him to send a final report in the matter.” The plaintiffs resisted the application by filing counter. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application, by order, dated 01.07.2010. Hence, this revision by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.100 of 2008. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 22.10.2010. The respondents 1 to 5/plaintiffs entered appearance through a counsel. 6th respondent is stated to be a proforma party. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/1st defendant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5/plaintiffs. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/1st defendant submits that the respondents 1 to 5/plaintiffs have included the land owned by the petitioner and 2nd defendant to the extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in the plaint schedule and therefore, the land claimed by the petitioner and 2nd defendant is required to be measured, for which warrant is required to be re-entrusted to the commissioner for localization of the land of the petitioner and 2nd defendant also. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5/plaintiffs submits that the Commissioner inspected the plaint schedule land and submitted the report and therefore, question of re-entrusting the warrant to the Commissioner for localization of the land of the petitioner and the 2nd defendant does not arise. 7. It is a matter of record that Advocate Commissioner appointed on the application moved by the respondents 1 to 5/plaintiffs executed the warrant and filed the report. The petitioner and 2nd defendant placed on record their objections to the Commissioner report. Their objections to the Commissioner report are yet to be considered by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. In these circumstances, question of considering the application filed by the petitioner and 2nd defendant under Section 151 CPC to direct the advocate commissioner to recall the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, does not arise. The petitioner and the 2nd defendant are at liberty to pursue their objections placed on record to the report already submitted by the advocate commissioner. There is no flaw in the order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahaububagar, in I.A.No.308 of 2010 warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:15th March, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4102 of 2010 Date:15th March, 2011