IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NO : 5937 of 2009 Between: Nadakuditi Suresh Babu ..... PETITIONER AND Done Venkateswara Rao and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5937 of 2009 O R D E R: This revision is directed against the order dated 10-08-2009 passed in I.A.No.1253 of 2008 in O.S.No.73 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, whereby and whereunder, the learned Junior Civil Judge allowed the application filed by the defendants under Order 26 Rule 9 and Section 151 CPC and appointed an advocate-commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the respondents/defendants have not made out any valid ground for appointment of a commissioner and therefore, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside. A further submission has been made that the commissioner cannot be appointed to collect the evidence and thus, the order impugned in the revision cannot be sustained. 4. The respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.73 of 2008. They filed I.A.No.1253 of 2008 under Order 26 Rule 8 and Section 151 CPC seeking appointment of a commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. Para 4 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1253 of 2009 reads as hereunder: “I submit that originally plaint schedule property down place calling as “china Revu” in the villages of North Chiruvolulanka and Mellamarthi Lanka villages and surrounding villages, this Chinna Revu Extending from Krishna River to Ayodya Gunnam, and people of Mellamarthilanka village North Chiruvolulanka and other villages using the same as drainage canals and irrigation channel Government extended long pipes under the old flood Bunds etc., but no one is the owner of the same from long back.” 5. The plaintiff filed the counter resisting the application. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the land in question is a dry land and crops are being raised. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the material brought on record, proceeded to allow the application filed by the defendants and appointed Sri P.Biksham, advocate, as commissioner to note down the physical features of the property by order dated 10-08-2009. The said order is assailed in this revision. 6. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the nature of the land. The petitioner-plaintiff asserts that the land is an agricultural land, whereas, the respondents-defendants contend that the land is used as irrigation/drainage channel and Government extended long pipes under the old flood bunds etc. Such is the contention of the parties, the appointment of the Commissioner is justified. 7. Therefore, I do not see any flaw in the order impugned in the revision and accordingly, the same is dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 15th December, 2009. kvr