THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1009 OF 2011 Dated: 24.11.2011 Between: 1. G. Kishan Rao (died per L.Rs.) 2. Gottimukkala Bhaskar Rao 3. Gottimukkala Ranga Rao 4. Gottimukkala Vimalamma … Petitioners And 1. Katakam Ananthamma 2. G. Narsing Rao … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1009 OF 2011 ORDER: The revision petitioners are the plaintiﬀs in O.S.No.1273 of 2004 on the ﬁle of the Court of the VII- Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar. They ﬁled the suit against the respondents herein / defendants for recovery of possession of suit schedule property. Pending the suit, the plaintiﬀs ﬁled I.A.No.2481 of 2010 under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for appointment of an advocate-commissioner to identify whether the suit schedule plot is situated in Sy.No.120 or not and whether it falls in Sy.Nos.121 and 122 of Kukatpally Village. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 14.12.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiffs. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material available on record, it is claimed by the plaintiﬀs that the suit schedule property, which is a plot admeasuring 750 sq. yards is situated in Sy.Nos.121 & 122 of Kukatpally Village. It is pleaded by them that the plaintiﬀ No.1 along with his three brothers was the joint owner of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.32-35 guntas situated in Sy.Nos.117 to 127, 127 paike, 128 & 129 of Kukatpally Village. There was oral partition among the brothers in the year 1980 and the lands that fell to the share of the 1st plaintiﬀ included Ac.2-07 guntas in Sy.No.121 and Ac.2-39 guntas in Sy.No.122. The brothers of the 1st plaintiﬀ were also given shares in Sy.Nos.121, 127 Paike & 129. The respective plots allotted to the 1st plaintiﬀ and his brothers were converted into residential plots and except a few plots the rest were sold by the 1st plaintiﬀ and his brothers. It is alleged that the defendant No.2 who is the son of the 1st plaintiﬀ’s brother was inimical to the plaintiﬀs and he sold the suit schedule plot to the defendant No.1 under sale deed dated 15.6.1985 showing that the plot is situated in Sy.No.120. According to the plaintiﬀs, the suit plot is situated in Sy.Nos.121 & 122 and the defendant No.2 has nothing to do with the same. In the plaint itself, it was pleaded that there was no clear demarcation of the lands allotted to each brother in the partition. However the plaintiﬀs sought appointment of Commissioner to ﬁnd out with the help of the Government Surveyor whether the suit schedule plot is situated in Sy.No.120 or not. The said application was dismissed by the Court below ﬁrstly on the ground that both the parties had already adduced oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their respective claims and the application which was ﬁled at the fag end of the proceedings after about 6 years after ﬁling of the suit was not bona ﬁde. Secondly it was held that it is highly impracticable to identify the suit schedule property and to demarcate the same with reference to each survey number as there are houses and multi-storeyed buildings. There can be no dispute about the well-settled principle of law that the appointment of an advocate- commissioner for local investigation is permissible if in the facts and circumstances of the particular case the Court comes to a conclusion that local investigation is necessary for the purpose of obtaining evidence which from its peculiar nature can only be had on the spot. However, the present case cannot be held to be such a case where it is essential to obtain the evidence on the spot by local investigation. In fact the Court below found that it is highly impracticable to identify the suit schedule property and to demarcate the same with reference to each survey number as there are houses and multi-storeyed buildings. Moreover, the evidence was already adduced on behalf of both the sides. It is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the parties that the arguments were also heard and the judgment is reserved as of today. Viewed from any angle, it is not a ﬁt matter for appointment of Commissioner at this stage. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition, which is devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 24.11.2011 gbs