THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1753 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel, for the fourth respondent (Caveator). The revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the rejection order dated 28.02.2011 of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in I.A.No.1111 of 2010 in O.S.No.25 of 2010. The revision petitioners filed the suit for partition of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. The interlocutory application was filed seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties; the description or identification of which is per se not in dispute. Earlier, the petitioners filed I.A.No.106 of 2010 seeking interim injunction to restrain the respondents therein, the defendants from making constructions or further constructions in any part of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. The substantive grievance in the said I.A. pertained to constructions by the fourth respondent in Item-5 of the ‘B’ schedule property, a site of an extent of 0.11 cents or 535.11 square yards, covered by Survey No.20/2 of G.M. Ward, Block No.850 situated at Eti Avathala Khandam of Anakapalle Municipality. It was alleged in I.A.No.106 of 2010 that the fourth respondent is making extensive constructions on the aforementioned property, claiming title to the same under a gift settlement deed, a certified Xerox copy of which is marked as Ex.B3 in the suit, executed by one Malla Appalanarasamma, mother of the first revision petitioner/plaintiff in favour of the fourth respondent. To support I.A.No.106 of 2010 seeking injunction {in particular against the fourth respondent} from making any further constructions in the said extent of property and thereby altering the substratum of the suit schedule property, the present application I.A.No.1111 of 2010 was filed. The Court below rejected the application holding that the suit being only for partition and not for recovery of damages or against the constructions made by the fourth respondent, the present application for appointment of a Commissioner for noting down the physical features of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties, has no suit claim. Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, would strenuously contend that since the verification of the physical features of Item-5 of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is essential for effectively pursuing I.A.No.106 of 2010, the application for Advocate Commissioner, though made in generic terms (covering ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties), ought to have been allowed at least in respect of Item-5 of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property. Sri T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, strenuously resists this contention. In the facts and circumstances, the generic terms in which the application in I.A.No.1111 of 2010 is couched not withstanding, having regard to the pendency of I.A.No.106 of 2010 wherein the revision petitioners seek injunction against the fourth respondent herein from making further constructions in Item-5 of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property, this Court considers it appropriate to allow I.A.No.1111 of 2010 only insofar as Item-5 of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is concerned. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and the order of the Court below is set aside. The Advocate Commissioner shall be appointed by the trial Court for noting down the physical features and submit a report on the status of the constructions in Item-5 of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and not in respect of any other property in ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. There shall be no order as to costs.q __________________ (GODA RAGHURAM, J) 11th August 2011 RRB