THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P.No.2259 of 2010 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29-03-2010 passed in I.A.No.371 of 2010 in O.S.No.718 of 2009 by the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secundrabad, wherein and whereby the petition filed under Order 26 Rule 9, read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner, was dismissed. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondents herein are the defendants. Petitioner-plaintiff filed suit being O.S.No.718 of 2009 for specific performance directing the 1st respondent-defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of Flat No.104 forming part of M.C.H No.1-8-115/1 & 2, Sahara Manzil, Kareem Compound, Macheloguda, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as earnest money to defendant No.1 and the balance amount of Rs.48,000/- to be paid at the time of execution and registration of sale deed. On 10-1-1992, defendant No.1 handed over the possession of the flat in question to the plaintiff. Since then, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Meanwhile, on 10-11-2009 4th defendant along with others came to the suit schedule property and tried to forcibly evict the plaintiff on the ground that he purchased the said property from defendant Nos.2 & 3. Hence, the present I.A. was filed along with another application. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the material available on record goes to show that no documents were filed by the plaintiff to show that she is in possession of the suit schedule property. Further, on an earlier occasion, a suit was filed and the same was decreed in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and after that, they sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.4. Moreover, the plaintiff did not assign any reason as to why the physical features are required to be noted. In this view of the matter, I feel that the findings as arrived at by the leaned Judge need no interference. The Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ____________________________ JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI rkk Dated: 10-06-2010