IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4893 of 2010 Between: G. Ramakrishna Reddy .. Petitioner AND Govind Narasimha Reddy .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4893 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri N. Vijay, learned counsel representing Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 26.07.2010, in I.A.No.59 of 2010 in I.A.No.373 of 2006 in O.S.No.8 of 2005, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kollapur, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for locating the suit bore point with reference to its existence in S.No.146/U or S.No.146/UU or S.No.72 or S.No.73 with the assistance of a qualified and experienced District Surveyor along with tounch map and tippon with accurate measurements. 3 The suit was filed for a perpetual injunction in respect of the suit bore well claiming its location to be in S.No.146/U of an extent of Ac. 0.07 guntas and S.No.146/UU of an extent of Ac. 0.06 guntas. The defendant claims the said bore well to be in his land in S.Nos.73 and 74. The defendant filed I.A.No.373 of 2006 for appointment of the Mandal Surveyor to locate the bore well with reference to the survey numbers in tune with the agreement between the parties, dated 22.10.2004. The Deputy Surveyor, Weepangandla, was appointed as Commissioner in pursuance of the orders in the said interlocutory application, executed the warrant of commission and filed his report along with the location sketches and the Panchanama before independent mediators. The plaintiff filed his objections to the said report and the defendant had no objections against that report. 4. While so, the plaintiff came up with the request for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner all over again and the trial Court passed the impugned order opining that the suit is ripe for trial and the plaintiff, without waiting for the determination of his objections during trial, filed the petition for appointment of another Commissioner without any cause and without cancellation of the earlier Commissioner’s report. Consequently, the petition was dismissed by the trial Court while awarding compensatory costs of Rs.500/- to the respondent. 5. The plaintiff challenges the said order in this revision contending that the report of the Deputy Surveyor in I.A.No.373 of 2006 cannot be accepted as the survey was conducted without referring to the tounch map and tippon and without physically clearing the thick bushes in the suit locality. As a proper survey is necessary for a satisfactory adjudication of the dispute, hence, the trial Court should have appointed another Commissioner as the circumstances justify the same even without setting aside the earlier report of the Surveyor. 6. The point for consideration is whether facts and circumstances of the case justify the appointment of a second Commissioner even without invalidating the first Commissioner’s report. 7. Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of the Court the principles laid down in P. UPENDRA LAXMANA RAO VS. COMMISSIONER OF SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT, LAND RECORDS, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS[1], in which it was concluded that before appointment of a second Advocate Commissioner, the Court should record its dissatisfaction about the report submitted by the first Commissioner, the object being to avoid conflict in the reports before the Court. Persuading the trial Court to accept the unacceptability of the report of the first Advocate Commissioner with reference to the objections raised by the aggrieved party or any other relevant considerations is a must before considering any request for the appointment of a second Commissioner. The principles squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions including about the objections of the plaintiff against the first Commissioner’s report, it is to be noted that so far, the trial Court had not gone into the objections of the plaintiff against the first Commissioner’s report and expressed any opinion on the same. While so, the request for appointment of a second Commissioner on the same objections could not have been considered by the trial Court and consequently, the order refusing to appoint a second Advocate Commissioner as of now may not be susceptible to interference. However, if the decision on the objections of the plaintiff against the first Commissioner’s report were to be postponed till the adjudication of the suit itself after completion of the evidence and arguments, the plaintiff may be deprived of the opportunity of having a second local inspection made even if his request is justified. Therefore, the trial Court should be requested to decide on the objections of the plaintiff against the Commissioner’s report before proceeding further in the matter and thereafter, if there is any expression of dissatisfaction by the trial Court against the first Commissioner’s report, it may consider any request by the plaintiff for the appointment of a second Commissioner on merits in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, while dismissing the civil revision petition without costs, the trial Court is directed to determine, on merits, after every reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties, the objections of the plaintiff against the report of the surveyor in I.A.No.373 of 2006 and if the trial Court were to be dissatisfied with the said report or to reject the said report, the revision petitioner/plaintiff is at liberty to approach the trial Court with a request for appointment of a second Commissioner, which request has to be considered by the trial Court on merits in accordance with law. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 18th August, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4893 of 2010 Date: 18th August, 2011 KL [1] 2010 (2) ALD 343