HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2375 OF 2011 DATE:08-07-2011 BETWEEN More Daramma & another …Petitioners AND Shaik Mastan and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2375 OF 2011 ORDER: In the suit filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners herein for permanent injunction, the defendants-respondents herein filed impugned I.A.No.187 of 2007 for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property such as stone walls, trees around the items as shown in the plan filed along with the petition and to note down the existence of old hayricks in the respective items out of the plaint schedule property. The petitioners herein contested the same by filing counter stating that they are having tiled house bearing D.No.5-21 at North-east corner adjacent to the plaint schedule property, that at the southern side of their house some extent in the plaint schedule property separate for backyard of their domestic use i.e. for cattle and keep their heap and for trees for peaceful atmosphere. The defendants-respondents herein taking advantage of the same, created a false story claiming the right as purchasers and filed the impugned petition, which is nothing but gathering of evidence and therefore, advocate-commissioner need not be appointed. By order dated 10.6.2011 the lower Court allowed the impugned I.A. Questioning the same, the present revision is filed by the plaintiffs. It is fairly well settled that the High Court can revise the order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India only in case if the impugned order is allowed to stand would attain finality and is incapable of correction at a later stage and the order will cause injustice and prejudice if not revised. Mere appointment of an advocate-commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property will not cause any prejudice to the petitioners. Further the petitioners are always at liberty to file their objections to the report to be filed by the commissioner and they can also file a work memo before the commissioner visits the site to note down the physical features etc., as per their stand in the counter. The lower Court may or may not accept the report of the commissioner. Ultimately, if the suit is decided against the petitioners basing upon the report of the commissioner, the petitioners can question the correctness of the same in the appeal. Therefore, the petitioners cannot have any grievance at this stage for appointing the commissioner. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JULY 08, 2011 Tsr.