HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4164 OF 2009 Monday, the Nineteenth Day of January, Two Thousand and Ten Between Bollam Anand Rao Petitioner/Defendant AND Sadiram Peddamma and others Respondents/Plaintiffs ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendant in the suit OS No. 543 of 2004 aggrieved by the order dated 21.7.2009 passed in I.A. No. 494 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Addl. Junior Civil Judge at Warangal. The respondents herein filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property based on title. The respondents are claiming an extent of Ac.1452 Sq. yards in Sy.No. 618 of Peddammagadda village. The petitioner herein is defending the said suit. Being defendant, he filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure and locate the suit schedule property to an extent of 1452 Sq.yards from northern boundary to southern boundary, alleging that the property is purchased by husband of the first respondent and father of the respondents 2 to 8 situated at Peddammagadda village does not touch Mulugu on southern side. The Court below by impugned order rejected the application stating that with specific boundaries the suit had been filed, it is for the respondents/plaintiffs to prove their case, but the petitioner cannot seek appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to locate the suit schedule property. It is submitted by Sri J.Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that by appointment of Advocate-Commissioner, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent. The learned counsel places reliance on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court in Mallikarjuna Srinivas Gupta Vs. K.Shashirekha ([1]). I have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application filed by the petitioner/defendant in IA No. 494 of 2009. The allegation in the petition is that the land of the respondents/plaintiffs in Sy.No. 618/B of Peddammagadda village does not touch Mulugu road towards southern side. The relief claimed by the petitioner is a matter of evidence, which has to be proved by the respondents/ plaintiffs. Even before such evidence is let in, the petitioner disputing the boundaries, cannot seek appointment of Advocate-Commissioner so as to earmark the land in question. In that view of the matter, even the judgment relied on by the petitioner would not render any assistance for appointment of Commissioner, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. For the reasons recorded by the court below I do not find any illegality to interfere with the order passed by the Court below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J. January 19, 2010 MAS [1] 2006(3) ALD 362