HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5272 OF 2009 DATE:02-12-2011 BETWEEN Smt.Nadakuditi Sulochana …Petitioner AND Smt.Koneru Sarojini and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5272 OF 2009 ORDER: Admittedly, the petitioner-plaintiﬀ in the suit purchased the property in dispute in the year 1998 from the father of defendants 2 and 3 and instituted the suit in O.S.No.698 of 2008 for declaration that she will have a right for use of plaint schedule property as pathway for ingress and egress into her property and for mandatory injunction for removing the constructions made in the pathway. Pending the suit, she ﬁled impugned I.A.No.714 of 2008 for appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner to note down the physical features of her property and the structures raised by the respondents herein in the plaint schedule property. According to the respondents- defendants, the property of the petitioner’s husband is situated on the southern side of her property and that they have purchased the present property and using both sides as one plot for ingress and egress and as such no rights over the schedule pathway have been conferred in favour of the petitioner as per her registered sale deed dated 7.10.1998. The lower Court by the impugned order dismissed the I.A. holding that it is nothing but an attempt by the petitioner to collect the evidence on her behalf. Admittedly, both sides adduced evidence and the matter was coming up for further evidence of defendants and at that stage the impugned I.A. is filed. When it is the speciﬁc case of the petitioner that under the registered sale deed executed by husband of ﬁrst defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 she is conferred a right over the pathway for her ingress and egress, it is for her to establish the same independently basing upon the documentary evidence, for which, an Advocate- Commissioner need not be appointed. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 02, 2011 Tsr.