THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2996 OF 2006 DATED:18.04.2011 Between: Chakilam Laxmi Bakthavathsalamba. .... PETITIONER And Nallela Rajender & 2 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 24.04.2006, in I.A.No.190 of 2006 in A.S.No.11 of 2006 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Warangal, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-appellant under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for local inspection, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Respondents filed the suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant restraining her from making further constructions and opening of windows in the disputed wall, which is alleged to be a common wall between two portions. After full-fledged trial, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner-defendant preferred an appeal-A.S.No.11 of 2006 and the same is pending. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner filed I.A.No.190 of 2006 seeking appointment of Commissioner to make local inspection of the disputed wall. According to the petitioner, the disputed wall was constructed in the year, 1985 and it is not a common wall and there is a gap of 10 inches between the disputed wall and the common wall, which was hundred years old. Respondents, on the other hand, would contend that there are no two walls and only one wall of 19 inches width is there and the petitioner-defendant made construction of the first and second floors over a width of 9 inches of the said common wall and illegally opened the windows overlooking the respondents’ portion. To substantiate the said contention, learned counsel for the respondents seeks to rely upon the admission said to have been made by the petitioner- D.W.1 in the evidence. Inasmuch as the appeal is pending before the learned Additional District Judge, it is considered imprudent to go into the merits of the case and the admission said to have been made by the witnesses in their evidence in the present proceedings. 4. Admittedly, petitioner-defendant filed a similar application seeking appointment of a Commissioner for making local inspection in the suit also and the said petition was dismissed and subsequently the suit was decreed. Admittedly, no revision was filed against the orders in I.A.No.2408 of 2005. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the said I.A. was disposed of few days earlier to the disposal of the main suit, there was no occasion to challenge the said order in I.A.No.2408 of 2005. 6. Be that as it may, since the main suit itself was disposed of and the petitioner-defendant filed the appeal, which is now pending, it is open to the petitioner-defendant to raise all contentions permissible under law in the said appeal, including the contention that the refusal of appointment of Commissioner as prayed for in I.A.No.2408 of 2005 was improper. 7. In the circumstances, it is considered that the impugned order does not call for any interference and the learned Additional District Judge shall dispose of the appeal on its own merits without in any way being influenced by the observations made hereinabove. 8. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th April, 2011. Tsy