IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTYSIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.3807 of 2009 Between: R. Venkat Ram Reddy and others .. Petitioners AND P. Sanjeeva Reddy .. Respondent ORDER: Heard Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. The dismissal of I.A.No.364 of 2009 in I.A.No.269 of 2009 in O.S.No.61 of 2009 by the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, on 17- 06-2009 led the plaintiffs to file the present revision petition. The plaintiffs sought for appointment of an advocate commissioner to note the physical features of Plot Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property and fixation of the boundaries in the suit for permanent injunction filed against the respondent alleging an attempt to encroach upon Plot Nos.1 and 2 by making illegal constructions. The respondent opposed the request for taking recourse to the appointment of an advocate commissioner for gathering information or collecting evidence. The trial Court opined that the suit is at the initial stage and the suit for permanent injunction has to be decided on the basis of the evidence for the plaintiff about lawful possession and its disturbance by the defendant. The suit with limited scope cannot be expanded by seeking appointment of a commissioner and hence, the trial court dismissed the petition. The revision petitioners contend herein that measuring and identifying the disputed property will be in the interests of justice without prejudice to either party and if the boundary dispute is settled between the parties, the controversy will be consequently resolved. The revision petitioners contended that fixing of boundaries as per the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs will not amount to collection of evidence. The point for consideration is whether an advocate commissioner has to be appointed for the purpose claimed by the plaintiffs? It is seen from the affidavit in support of the application that the plaintiffs contended that the extent of Plot No.1 is not in dispute and Plot No.2 was stated even by the defendant to be admeasuring 37 X 55 ft. i.e. a total of 226sq.yds. The plaintiffs contended that while Plot No.1 is within the specific boundaries in specified extent, measuring of Plot Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with the pleadings of the parties will not amount to collection of evidence. In the counter affidavit by the defendant, the defendant contended that the plaintiffs executed a settlement deed dated 01- 02-2009 on which the boundaries were fixed, which boundaries cannot be in dispute. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs are trying to fix the boundaries as per the sale deeds now without any evidence that the plots were measured and demarcated at the time of registration of sale deeds. Therefore, they are not entitled to appointment of a commissioner. Thus, it is seen that the parties are at dispute about the availability of the land in Plot No.2 in the manner specified in the sale deeds relied on by the plaintiffs or in the manner claimed by the defendant. The suit for permanent injunction is concerning a specified property of 455 sq.yds., within the specified boundaries capable of being identified. Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, had shown the photographs showing the existence of a building in which Sai Durga General Stores is being run, apart from Shravya printers and claimed that the said building in the possession and enjoyment of the defendant is in existence in the property in dispute. Irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the conflicting claims, admittedly, the parties have documents of title and even in a suit for permanent injunction, incidentally the question of title may have to be gone into. There is nothing illegal or irregular in the trial Court being persuaded to consider the conflicting claims of the parties with reference to the respective titles claimed by them with reference to their respective documents. The pleadings of the parties in the plaint and the written statement show that the parties are admittedly neighbouring owners of properties disputing about the identity of their respective extents. The appointment of an advocate commissioner to make a local inspection will help furnish independent assistance to the Court in arriving at a reasonable solution to the conflicting claims of the parties in the suit. The same may not amount to collection of evidence and need not be necessarily considered premature under the circumstances of the case. Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, has offered to bear the expenses of the advocate commissioner irrespective of the result of the suit, as in his considered opinion, once the measurements are taken, the dispute will be resolved. Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that any such commissioner should also take the measurements with reference to the documents produced by the defendant and the contentions of the defendant raised in the written statement, which need not be emphasized specifically, as any commissioner would be bound to answer any work memos filed before him by the parties. Under the circumstances, it is considered necessary in the interests of justice to appoint an advocate commissioner. The order dated 17-06-2009 in I.A.No.364 of 2009 in I.A.No.269 of 2009 in O.S.No.61 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, is set aside and the said Court shall appoint an advocate commissioner for the purposes stated in the petition and it shall name the advocate commissioner and also fix the fee payable to him. Any such advocate commissioner shall give notice to both the parties before executing the warrant of commission and answer the work memos, if any, filed before him by the parties. He shall direct both the parties to appear before him at the time of execution of the warrant. The revision petitioners shall bear the expenses of the commission irrespective of the result of the suit. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 26-03-2010 Ksn