THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.147 of 2011 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.269 of 2009 against the petitioners in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, for the relief of perpetual, as well as mandatory injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. It was alleged that the petitioners have encroached into the ancestral property of the respondent and started construction of a house. He filed I.A.No.1368 of 2009 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C., with a prayer to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit land. The petitioners opposed the application by stating that they have filed O.S.No.243 of 2009 against the respondent, in the same Court, seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the said property. It was also mentioned that the suit schedule property is owned by them, and that the Government also issued possession certificate in favour of petitioner No.1. The trial Court allowed the I.A.No.1368 of 2009, through order dated 30-12-2010. Hence this revision. Heard Sri A.V. Sivaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners. In respect of the same property, two suits are filed before the trial Court. The first suit is filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.243 of 2009 for the relief of perpetual injunction, and the other suit is filed by the respondent, in O.S.No.269 of 2009, for the relief of perpetual as well as mandatory injunction. The petitioners pleaded that the respondent filed the suit, after receiving notice in O.S.No.243 of 2009. Irrespective of the truth of this contention, once a suit is pending in respect of the same property, as between the same parties, the first step must be, to get both the suits clubbed, so that the possibility of conflicting orders being passed in each of them, can be avoided. The respondent has already admitted that the petitioners commenced the construction. It is only when there is a serious dispute, as to the situation prevailing on the ground, that an application can be filed for appointment of Advocate- Commissioner, that too, after the pleadings are complete, and generally, at the commencement of the trial. The application filed by the respondent was not at all maintainable in law. Hence, the C.R.P is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The trial Court, however, is directed to club both the suits, i.e., O.S.Nos.243 and 269 of 2009, and take up the interlocutory applications filed in both the suits, and dispose of the same as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.31-01-2011. KO