THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.5628 OF 2008 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 26.09.2008 passed by the court of I Additional District Judge at Khammam in I.A.No.67/2007 in A.S.No.78/2005 in appointing an Advocate Commissioner to identify and demarcate the land to an extent of Acs.2-35 gts in Sy.No.134/E situate at Manyathanda, H/O Edulapuram within the limits of Sub Registrar, Khamma, the respondents in the I.A., who are the defendants in the suit, filed the present revision. 3. Before noting the respective contentions, it is necessary to note brief history of the case. 4. The mother of the 1st respondent herein, earlier filed suit in O.S.No.35/1974 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Khammam, representing the 1st respondent and his brother Banooth Pratap Rao against here husband, as she was not having amicable terms with him, for partition and separate possession of ancestral property in Sy.No.135/E to an extent of Acs.2-35 guts with specific boundaries. The said suit was decreed and the plaintiffs therein were declared to have got 1/3rd share each in the property and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to divide by metes and bounds and for delivery of possession. Advocate Commissioner instead of dividing the property, proposed for equitable partition by allotment of Sy.No.134/E admeasuring Acs.2-32 gts to the plaintiffs and other property to the defendants. The said proposal which was filed in the court in the form of report, was accepted and accordingly E.P.No.32/1975 was filed and the court balief executed the court warrant on 27.10.1975 and filed the panchanama into the court. Alleging that the said extent of land which was the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.35/1974 was encroached by the defendants, the plaintiffs filed the present suit in O.S.No.26/1984 for declaration of title and directing the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property and for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The said suit was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam by judgment and decree dated 30.9.1997. In the present suit in O.S.No.26/1984, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed at the instance of the defendants and he filed report. Challenging the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff no.1 filed appeal in A.S.No.39/1997. The plaintiff no.2 was arrayed as respondent no.12 in the said appeal. Initially by order dated 23.12.2000 the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh disposal. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants carried the matter to this court in C.M.A.No.688/2001 and this court directed the lower appellate court to dispose of the appeal afresh and further directed to decide the issue whether the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner again, would serve the purpose. Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal in A.S.No.39/1997. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs herein preferred second appeal in S.A.No.1134/2003. This court set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court in A.S.No.39/1997 dated 5.2.2003 and remitted the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law. As per the directions in the second appeal, the lower appellate court disposed of the first appeal in A.S.No.39/1997 afresh by judgment and decree dated 27.1.12005 and held that the Advocate Commissioner failed to identify the suit schedule property, whether it is situate in Sy.No.134/E or some other survey number and in the absence of such material, it is impossible to decide the appeal or suit and therefore accordingly remitted the matter back to the trial court to entrust the warrant to the commissioner for the purpose of inspection and identifying the suit schedule land whether it is situate in Sy.No.134/E or in some other survey number with the assistance of revenue officials with all records and after ascertaining the land covered by plaint schedule, and further the lower court was directed to dispose of the suit within six months. By judgment and decree dated 22.9.2005, the trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff no.2 and his legal heirs are not brought on record. Challenging the same, the plaintiff no.1 preferred first appeal in A.S.No.78/2008 and in the appeal, he sought for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for inspection and identifying the suit schedule land in Sy.No.134/E, in I.A.No.67/2007 in A.S.No.78/2005. By the impugned order and decree dated 29.09.2008 the lower appellate court allowed the I.A. and appointed an Advocate Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents in the appeal, who are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, filed the present revision. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the court below did not appreciate the material available on record. He submitted that in the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he filed the report and based on the said report, the trial court dismissed the suit and the earlier report filed by the Commissioner, was not set aside and in the absence of setting the earlier report, appointment of another Commissioner at the appellate stage, is not warranted. With these averments, he sought for setting aside the impugned order. 6 . On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff no.1 supporting the impugned order, sought for dismissal of the revision. 7. The plaintiffs 1 and2 filed the suit for declaration of title and for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property. 8. The suit schedule property is an extent of Acs.2-35 gts in Sy.No.134/E situate at Manyathanda, H/O Edulapuram within the limits of Sub registrar, Khamma. 9. From the material available on record it is not in dispute that the mother of the plaintiffs filed earlier suit in O.S.No.35/1974 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Khamma for partition and separate possession, representing the plaintiffs and the said suit was decreed on 26.6.1975 and in the execution petition filed in E.P.No.32/1975 in the said suit, the schedule property was delivered to the plaintiffs by the court balief and the said panchanama was filed in the present suit and it is marked as Ex.A-4. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants have encroached the land, which was delivered to him by virtue of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.35/1974. Therefore, he along with his brother filed the suit. Right from the beginning the case of the plaintiff is that the Commissioner has not acted to demarcate the property in Sy.No.134/E. Further from the material available on record, earlier, the Commissioner failed to identify the suit schedule property, where it is situate and whether it is covered by Sy.No.134/E or some other survey number. Therefore, in order to put an end to the litigation between the parties and to have a comprehensive adjudication, the court below rightly appointed an Advocate Commissioner. It is be noticed once again that the earlier commissioner has not carried out the orders of the court and failed to identify the land. Therefore, for comprehensive adjudication and to put an end to the litigation, the present commissioner was appointed. Hence, I do not find any merit in the revision and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS ------------------------------------ 03—11—2009