THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2617 of 2010 Dated: 6.8.2010 Between: Meenaketana Ratho .. Petitioner And 1. Bhimmokanto Ratho and another. ….Respondents. This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2617 of 2010 ORDER: The order under revision is the order passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District in I.A.No.15 of 2010 in O.S.No.37 of 2002, dated 25.2.2010 whereby the petitioner-2nd defendant’s application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC., to appoint an advocate-commissioner to localize and measure the property in his possession and that of the 1st respondent-plaintiff was rejected. The petitioner herein contended before the Court below that his share extended to 2 cubits width of site; that he was in possession and enjoyment of the said extent; he constructed a house in another property of an extent of 4 cubits; and since he was enjoying the property, it would be appropriate to appoint an advocate-commissioner to ascertain the realities on ground and to elucidate the real disputes, which was useful for the purpose of just decision of the case. The Court below observed that already the plaintiff’s side evidence was closed and the suit was coming for evidence of the defendant; the petitioner-defendant was at liberty to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of his contention; at that stage, there was no need to appoint an advocate-commissioner to localize and measure the property in possession of the parties; it is not a dispute for extent and localization; the parties did not dispute measurements and are claiming possession over the suit schedule property; which was required to be resolved on oral and documentary evidence of the parties. The Court below was of the view that the appointment of the Commissioner was not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. The jurisdiction which this Court exercises under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory and not appellate. It is not to be exercised to interfere with interlocutory orders save manifest injustice or patent illegality. This Court would ordinarily refrain from interfering with the discretion exercised by the Court below. The Court below has observed that the petitioner-defendant was at liberty to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of his contention and at that stage there was no need to appoint an advocate-commissioner. The discretion exercised by the Court below, in refusing the petitioner’s request for appointment of an advocate-commissioner, neither suffers from a patent illegality nor can the order passed be said to have resulted in manifest injustice to the petitioner. The CRP fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. _________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Dated: 6.8.2010 Nn. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P. NO.2617 of 2010 Dated: 6.8.2010