HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.831 OF 2010 DATE:05-03-2010 BETWEEN: Eathakota Satyanarayanamma …Petitioner AND Mupparthi Raja Rao @ Babulu …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.831 OF 2010 ORDER: Plaintiff is in revision assailing the orders of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, dated 1.9.2009 dismissing I.A.No.829 of 2008 in O.S.No.367 of 2005 filed for appointment of an advocate-commissioner for demarcating the property. The plaintiff-petitioner herein filed the above suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property to an extent of Ac.0.18 cents in R.S.No.195 of Savaram of Amalapuram Municipality and for damages alleging that when she visited the land in the first week of July, 2005, she was informed by one Lakshmikantha Ratnam that they would get their land surveyed, and that she participated in the survey, in which, she came to know that the defendant encroached the plaint schedule property. Whereas, according to the defendant, he purchased Ac.0.49 cents in R.S.No.195 of Amalapuram and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, the petitioner filed the impugned I.A. seeking appointment of an advocate-commissioner for demarcating the property to an extent of Ac.1.93 cents belongs to her and the property of Ac.0.29 cents of the defendant excluding the property sold by the parties out of Ac.5.59 cents and to find out to whom the plaint schedule property belongs and the extent of the property to which the defendant is entitled out of Ac.1.59 cents after Vasaka Reddy sold away property under three sale deeds, dated 4.10.1967, 2.7.1984 and another sale deed, dated 2.7.1984 and to prepare a plan and file a report. It is not disputed that earlier, similar application in I.A.No.1370 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for appointment of commissioner was dismissed by the lower Court holding that the petitioner was making attempt to gather evidence on her behalf through the commissioner, which is not at all permissible. However, while dismissing the said application, it was observed that the petitioner is at liberty to file similar application after adducing the evidence, and if it were found necessary, commissioner would be appointed. Taking clue from the said observations, the impugned I.A. appears to have been filed after adducing the evidence on behalf of the petitioner. Since the relief claimed referred to above amounts to gathering of evidence through the commissioner, the lower Court was rightly not inclined to appoint the commissioner. The discretion so exercised by the lower Court in dismissing the impugned I.A. does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 05, 2010 Tsr.