IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2551 of 2009 Between: Smt. Putnala Janaki and another .. Petitioners AND Malagari Ratnaiah .. Respondent Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16-02-2009 in I.A. No.2328 of 2006 in A.S. No.66 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Govind, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri K. Sudhakar, Advocate for the respondent, the Court made the following: ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order in I.A. No.2328 of 2006 in A.S. No.66 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge’s Court, Medak at Sangareddy, dated 16-02-2009 by which the request of the plaintiffs for appointment of an advocate commissioner to survey the suit survey number and fix boundaries with the assistance of an officer of the Survey and Land Records of Medak District and to note the physical features of the suit property and also to note whether there is land of suit survey number towards the West of the suit land, was dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court under appeal before the District Court shows that it considered that the boundaries, which were shown in Exs.A.1 and A.2, were not corresponding with the boundaries specified for the subject land in the suit. The trial Court also observed that the boundaries shown in Ex.X.1 title deed of P.W.2 do not bind the defendant. The trial Court further observed that the land of the vendor of D.W.1 is on the Western side of the land sold under Ex.A.1. Thus, the whole adjudication by the trial Court revolved round the boundaries specified in various documents and the boundaries which appear to be available on land from the pleadings and the oral evidence of the parties. The request of the revision petitioners to the first appellate Court was mainly to have the boundaries for the subject property fixed by an advocate commissioner, assisted by a Government surveyor obviously in view of the reasoning adopted by the trial Court for determination of the questions in controversy between the parties. It is no doubt true that the plaintiffs have to succeed or fail on the strength of their own case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s version and it is also true that they cannot fish out evidence through a commissioner. However, when the description of the boundaries in different documents of both parties did not exactly tally and there appeared to be inconsistency in the boundaries specified in the documents or in the oral evidence, fixation of boundaries through an advocate commissioner cannot be considered to be an irrelevant exercise, though the acceptability and probative value of any findings of such advocate commissioner will be a matter of appreciation for the first appellate Court, more particularly after assessing the same with reference to the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties before the Court. Denying an opportunity to the petitioners to have such an exercise done, does not appear to be in the interests of justice. But the fact remains that the petitioners came up with this request before the first appellate Court after long delay after commencement of the litigation and therefore, it would be in the interests of justice to direct the petitioners to bear the cost of commission irrespective of the result of the appeal and the suit. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and consequently, the order of the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in I.A. No.2328 of 2006 in A.S. No.66 of 2006, dated 16-02-2009 is set aside and the said I.A. No.2328 of 2006 is allowed directing the first appellate Court to appoint an advocate commissioner for the purposes of the petition in accordance with Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and further directing that the petitioners shall bear the cost of such commission irrespective of the result of the appeal and the suit. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 30-10-2009 Svv