THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.570 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.281 of 2006 on the file of the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Warangal. Respondent herein filed O.S.No.281 of 2006 for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest. In the said suit, Advocate Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features of the constructed portion by the plaintiff pursuant to an agreement entered with the defendants. After submission of report by the Advocate Commissioner, the first petitioner herein, on the ground that the Advocate Commissioner failed to note down all the physical features as per the work memo submitted by him, filed I.A.No.926 of 2006 seeking to redirect the Advocate Commissioner to note down all the physical features as per the work memo submitted by him. The said I.A. was ordered by the Court below by order, dated 13.10.2006, on condition of deposit of Rs.2,000/- by the first petitioner. It is stated that Rs.2,000/- has already been deposited. Subsequently, the petitioners filed I.A.No.296 of 2008 seeking to direct the Advocate Commissioner to execute the warrant of commission immediately. The said I.A. was also allowed by order, dated 04.09.2008. When the matter was posted on 08.07.2009 for filing report by the Advocate Commissioner pursuant to the order passed in I.A.No.926 of 2006, the Court below closed the said I.A. on the ground that a representation was made by the petitioners’ counsel for closure of it. To reopen the said I.A., the petitioners filed I.A.No.165 of 2009 stating that their advocate was engaged in another Court when the case was called, as such, there was no representation, but the Court below by order, dated 22.09.2009, rejected that I.A. Hence, this revision petition. It is contended by Sri J.Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners that when I.A.No.926 of 2006 was posted on 08.07.2009, as the learned counsel representing the petitioners was engaged in another Court, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners but the Court below closed the I.A. But, however, misconstruing the same, the Court below by recording finding that I.A.No.926 of 2006 was closed only at the instance of the petitioners, who were filing applications one after the other without proceeding with the trial, has erroneously rejected I.A.No165 of 2009 by the impugned order. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that I.A.No.926 of 2006 is not maintainable, as the Advocate Commissioner has already submitted the report earlier. I have perused a copy of the order, dated 13.10.2006 passed in I.A.No.926 of 2006 filed by the first petitioner seeking to re-direct the Advocate Commissioner to note down all the physical features with reference to the work memo filed by him. It indicates that the said I.A. was ordered by the Court below directing the Advocate Commissioner to note down all the physical features as per the work memo filed by the first petitioner and proceed to the spot only after issuance of memo to both the parties. When the matter was coming up for report on 08.07.2009, the report was not filed, as such, the Court below ought to have given further opportunity to the petitioners before closure of I.A.No.926 of 2006. Even during the course of arguments before this Court, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that on 08.07.2009, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners and there was only representation on behalf of the respondent. In that view of the matter, it is to be noted that while passing the impugned order rejecting I.A.No.165 of 2009, mainly, the Court below proceeded on the ground that I.A.No.926 of 2006 was closed on the representation made by the petitioners’ counsel, which in fact, appears to be incorrect. As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners on 08.07.2009, the question of their representation for closure of I.A.No.926 of 2006 does not arise. As much as it is the case of the petitioners that the counsel on record was engaged in another Court, this Court is of the view that it is evidently a fit case to give opportunity to the petitioners by re-opening the case, awaiting report of the Advocate Commissioner as per the order, dated 13.10.2006, passed in I.A.No.926 of 2006. For the aforesaid reasons, order under challenge, dated 22.09.2009, is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.165 of 2009 stands allowed restoring I.A.No.926 of 2006. The Court below shall proceed further for the report of the Advocate Commissioner in the light of the order, dated 13.10.2006 passed in I.A.No.926 of 2006 in O.S.No.281 of 2006. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the directions recorded above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th OCTOBER, 2010. kvni