THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2770 of 2011 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.199 of 2009 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki against the petitioners for the relief of perpetual injunction as regards the usage of a piece of land marked as ‘ADEF’. He has also filed two applications viz., I.A.No.1040 of 2009 to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to note the physical feature and I.A.No.1039 of 2010 for temporary injunction. In both the applications, ad interim orders were passed. The Advocate-Commissioner is said to have noted the physical features. The petitioners filed I.A.No.665 of 2010 alleging that the respondents made construction in the portion marked as ‘AEDF’ under the guise of temporary injunction and requested the Court to direct the very Advocate-Commissioner to make inspection of the site. The application was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 18.03.2009. Hence, this civil revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. The relief claimed in the suit is no doubt very limited viz., the perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioners herein from interfering with the alleged right of the respondent in using the marked portion as a passage to reach the public road. At the instance of the respondent, an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed and he has noted the physical features. An order of temporary injunction is also operating in his favour. The petitioners made a categorical statement before the trial Court that the respondent has constructed not only upon the plot of land marked as ‘ABCD’ purchased by him, but also on the part of the land marked as ‘ADEF’. There should not have been any difficulty for the trial Court in acceding to the request of the petitioners. In case, it emerges that the respondent has made constructions over the said site, it amounts to gross misuse of the process of Court. On the other hand, if it is established that no such construction was made, the suit can be decided on its own merits. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The trial Court is directed to require the Advocate-Commissioner appointed in I.A.No.1040 of 2009 to note the features that are existing as of now over the portion marked as ‘ADEF’ in the suit schedule property within 15 days from today, after issuing notice to both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 19.10.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2770 of 2011 Date: 19.10.2011 JSU