The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.1022 of 2010 Dated 30th July, 2010 Between: Mangali Pullamma …Petitioner And Boya Hampamma …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.A.Chandraiah Naidu Counsel for the respondent: ----- The Court made the following: Order: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against Order, dated 20-01-2010, in IA.No.415 of 2009 in OS.No.22 of 2008, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda, Kurnool District. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the above-mentioned suit filed against the respondent for mandatory and permanent injunctions. After the written statement was filed by the respondent and trial was commenced, the petitioner has filed IA.No.415 of 2009 seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner along with Mandal Surveyor of Pattikonda, to note down the topographical features and measure the alleged illegal and unlawful encroachment made by the respondent/defendant in the public road marked as EFGH in the plaint plan. In her affidavit filed in support of the said application, the petitioner stated that the appointment of Advocate-Commissioner is very much essential, as the respondent/defendant has stated that she is within the boundaries of the land given to her by way of a patta. The lower Court rejected this application by observing that the Mandal Revenue Officer has granted pattas to both the parties with specific physical measurements; that as such, there is no need to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the topographical features and that in support of her plea that the respondent has made unlawful encroachment, the petitioner may produce necessary documentary evidence at the time of trial. In my opinion, the reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s application are sound and convincing and they do not call for any interference by this Court. Further more, from the affidavit filed in support of the said IA, it is evident that the petitioner has filed the said application at the time of her cross-examination. Thus, there is a belated attempt on the part of the petitioner to get an Advocate-Commissioner appointed during the course of trial. In my opinion, this practice needs to be curbed. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CMP.No.1407 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 30th July, 2010 lur