HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2490 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, FAC. Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, in I.A.No.503 of 2010 in O.S.No.514 of 2008, dated 23.03.2011. The suit in O.S.No.514 of 2008 was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioners-defendants from interfering with the respondent-plaintiff’s laying of a pipe line on the road margins adjacent to his land. An application was filed seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, who later inspected the land and submitted his report. A copy of the report was furnished to the petitioners-defendants. On the ground that the oral objections submitted by them were not considered by the Advocate Commissioner, the petitioners sought reentrustment of the warrant to the said Advocate Commissioner. Rejection of the request of the petitioners- defendants, by the Court below, has resulted in the present revision petition being filed. Heard Sri A.Sreedhar, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, Learned Counsel for the respondent. While Sri A.Sreedhar, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that all that he is seeking is that the Advocate Commissioner should note his objections in his report, Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, Learned Counsel for the respondent, would submit that this would amount to the appointment of a Commissioner afresh, and that the law laid down in Pamula Narsaiah v. Pamula Murali[1] prohibits appointment of a second Commissioner. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine this controversy as, on the submission of his report by the Advocate Commissioner, the petitioners-defendants are not deprived of an opportunity to submit their objections before the Court below, instead of seeking reentrustment of the warrant to the Advocate Commissioner. It is always open to the petitioners herein to file their objections to the Advocate Commissioner’s report which the Court below shall take into consideration. As the petitioners have an opportunity to raise objections to the Advocate Commissioner’s report before the Court below, I see no reason to interfere with the order impugned in this revision petition. Subject to the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:22.07.2011 Note:CC by 26.07.2011 bo Usd [1] 2001(2) An.W.R. 427 (AP)