THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.370 of 2010 ORDER: The deceased-first petitioner filed O.S.No.290 of 2003 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, against the respondents for the relief of declaration of tile, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondents on the other hand filed O.S.No.378 of 2003 in the same Court against the deceased-petitioner for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of part of the suit schedule property. I.A.No.686 of 2004 was filed under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to visit the suit schedule property, measure the same with reference to the relevant documents and to file a report. The I.A. was ordered and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. However, stating that the Surveyor did not attend the work on the stipulated date, the Commissioner submitted an interim report. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.405 of 2006 with a prayer to direct the commissioner to re-visit the place, after the arguments were addressed. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed O.S.No.290 of 2003 and allowed O.S.No.378 of 2003 through a common judgment dated 24.06.2003. The petitioners filed A.S.No.84 of 2006 against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.290 of 2003 in the court of I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. During the pendency of the appeal, they filed I.A.No.815 of 2009 with a prayer to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner and direct him to visit the site, measure the property by taking assistance of the Mandal Surveyor and submit a report. The application was opposed by the respondents. The appellate Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 28.102.2009. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. This is not a case where the petitioners filed the application for appointment of a Commissioner for the first time in the appeal. It is a matter of record that such an application was filed during the pendency of the suit and in fact, a Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner expressed his inability to execute the warrant due to some reasons. The steps taken by the petitioners to require the commissioner to re-visit the site did not fructify. The main ground on which the appellate Court dismissed the application was the delay on the part of the petitioners. Viewed in isolation, this ground may appear to be correct. The fact however remains that the 1st petitioner suffered from prolonged illness of cancer and ultimately died. His legal representatives came on record during the pendency of the appeal. This naturally would take some time for them to pursue the matter with the required amount of promptitude. This Court is of the view that the petitioners have made out a case for appointment of a Commissioner and the I.A. deserves to be allowed. Since the matter is pending for the last several years, time frame can be fixed therefor. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. I.A.No.815 of 2009 is allowed and the appellate Court shall appoint an Advocate-Commissioner stipulating two months time to him to execute the warrant. After the report of the Commissioner is received, the appeal shall be disposed of within one month thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 14.07.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.370 of 2010 Date: 14.07.2010 JSU