loIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5087 OF 2010 Between:- Uppalapati Saraswathamma …Petitioner A n d Siripurapu Jamamma and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5087 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 13-07-2010 in I.A.No.209 of 2009 in O.S.No.151 of 2008, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Srungavarapukota, Vizianagaram District, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Commissioner to localize the plaint schedule land, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The respondents herein filed the suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement contesting the suit inter alia on the ground that there was earlier round of litigation in O.S.No.121 of 1991 in respect of the same property between the same parties and that the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. But, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal in A.S.No.79 of 1999, on the file of the District Court, wherein the appeal was allowed and consequently the suit was decreed. The petitioner, therefore, alleges that having allowed the judgment and decree in A.S.No.79 of 1999 to become final, the plaintiffs have now resorted to fresh round of litigation in respect of the same property, but, however, giving a different schedule. The petitioner/defendant, therefore, seeks appointment of a Commissioner to localize the plaint schedule land with reference to the plaint schedules in the earlier suit and the present suit. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Srungavarapukota, by the impugned order, dismissed the said application on the premise that the earlier plaint schedule and also judgment and decree in the earlier suit and appeal are not filed before the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has, in fact, filed the judgments and decrees in the earlier suit O.S.No.121 of 1991 and appeal A.S.No.79 of 1999 under GR.No.1622 dated 01-04-2009, but, however, the trial Court failed to notice the same. If the petitioner/ defendant had already filed the documents vide GR.No.1622, the observation of the trial Court that the said documents are not placed on record, is rather unwarranted. 4. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, it is considered that the trial Court be directed to look into the matter afresh and in the light of the documents filed vide GR.No.1622 dated 01-04-2009 and pass appropriate orders on merits. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law in the light of the observations made above. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th February, 2011 Lrkm.