THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3203 of 2010 January 20, 2011 Between: Madhavan Tulasi Prasad, S/o.Madhavan And other ...Petitioner AND Kuppuswamy Madhavan, S/o.Kuppuswamy And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3203 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.400 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. The plaintiff, the respondent herein, filed the suit for cancellation of the gift/settlement deed dated 10.11.2009, and for declaration of his right and title over the plaint A schedule property and for consequential injunction. The first defendant is opposing the suit. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.815 of 2009 for ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of plaint A schedule property. The plaintiff also filed I.A.No.816 of 2009 for appointment of advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the schedule property. In the said I.A., the Court below appointed an advocate commissioner directing to issue notice to both the parties and to file a report whether there is breakage of underground pipe line leading from bore well reaching the house of the plaintiff situated in south east corner. The advocate commissioner was directed to file a report by 30.4.2010. It appears that the advocate commissioner made a representation on 30.4.2010 bringing to the notice of the Court below that the petitioners herein objected by not allowing him to dig the underground pipe line. Their contention was that there was no specific direction in the warrant of commission. Acting on such submission, the Court below directed the commissioner to dig the ground at random to note down the underground pipe line. Aggrieved by the same, present civil revision petition is filed. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below exceeded its jurisdiction under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). According to the Counsel without there being any application, the Court below could not have passed such an order. This Court has perused various proceedings before the Court below. After giving serious consideration to the submissions, this Court is convinced that the civil revision petition is misconceived. The requirement of a party to the proceedings filing an application seeking interlocutory relief may not be applicable to the advocate commissioner. One cannot forget the fact that the advocate commissioner is virtually acting as a Court. Therefore the advocate commissioner is not expected to file an application. In case of a receiver or a commissioner appointed to take accounts, the case would be altogether different. In this case, admittedly when the advocate commissioner went to execute the warrant, the petitioners objected for digging the ground to notice whether or not there is breakage of underground pipe line. When this is brought to the notice of the Court, the impugned order was passed. Section 94(e) of CPC enables the Court to make any interlocutory order as may appear to be just and convenient to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. This principle applies to the facts of the present case as well. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) January 20, 2011 YS