HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5574 of 2008 Date: 15.11.2010 Between : Vedagiri Venkata Ramanaiah (died, per L.Rs) & others. …….Petitioners And M.Manak Khanna & another. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5574 of 2008 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.1251 of 2003, pending on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, against the order, dated 17.11.2008, passed in I.A.No.702 of 2008 in the said suit. The suit is filed for injunction simplicitor. There is a dispute with regard to a vacant site. Earlier, an Advocate- Commissioner was appointed for noting down the physical features of the suit schedule property, and he has already submitted his report, for which, objections were filed by the petitioners. I.A.No.702 of 2008 was filed by the plaintiffs for appointment of another Advocate- Commissioner for the purpose of measuring the plaint schedule property and both parties’ sites and houses as per their title deeds and link deeds, with the assistance of the Town Surveyor. The Court below, by the impugned order, rejected the said I.A., by recording a finding that appointment of Advocate-Commissioner for the purpose as sought for, will lead to gathering of evidence and that the report submitted by the earlier Advocate- Commissioner is already on record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that they have already filed objections to the earlier report, but such objections are not being considered. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents that the earlier report is already there, where objections are filed, and hence, there is no reason to seek for appointment of another Advocate- Commissioner. Even according to the petitioners, the suit is still pending consideration. When objections are on record, now, it cannot be said that such objections filed by the petitioners for the previous report submitted by the Advocate-Commissioner, are not being considered. At the same time, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Court below. As rightly recorded by the Court below, if any order is passed for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner for the purpose as sought for, would definitely amount to gathering of evidence. As much as the suit is for injunction simplicitor and the previous Advocate-Commissioner has already submitted is report, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, so as to interfere in the matter, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is needless to observe that if any objections are filed by the petitioners with regard to the earlier report, I am sure the Court below will consider such objections when the matter is being disposed of finally. Subject to the above observations, the revision is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th November 2010 ajr