THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2068 of 2011 Date:17.8.2011 Between: Kanamariaputi Raghu Kumar ………...Petitioner. And Shaik Babu alias Babu …… Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2068 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 24.3.2011 passed in I.A.No.372 of 2010 in O.S.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge allowed the application filed by the defendant in O.S.No.1 of 2010 and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit locality. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and whereas the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.1 of 2010. The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction. The defendant entered appearance and resisted the relief sought for by the plaintiff. The defendant filed I.A.No.372 of 2010 under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner for noting the physical features in the suit locality. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.372 of 2010 that the suit locality was once a Harijanawada and on account of disuse of the houses, they got collapsed and there are traces of residential houses. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the said application. 3. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to allow the application by order dated 24.3.2011. The said order is under challenge in this revision. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that when the respondent/defendant is not claiming the suit schedule property, the question of appointing the advocate commissioner does not arise and therefore, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant supports the order impugned in the revision on the ground that appointment of commissioner is essential to note down the physical features to prove that the suit locality was once a residential area. 7. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. Both the parties have taken a divergent stands with regard to the physical features of the suit area. The trial Court, having taken note of the divergent stands, proceeded to appoint the advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit area. There is no flaw in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:17.08.2011 mrb