THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 4919 of 2010 Date of order: 24.11.2010 Between: Jampana Suryanarayana Jagannadha Raju …Petitioner and Nadimpalli Tirupathi Raju and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 4919 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioners. Appellants in AS No. 379 of 2004 advanced arguments before the lower appellate Court and at that stage they filed an application seeking appointment of an advocate-commissioner to measure the respective extents of the plaintiffs and the defendants with the help of a qualified surveyor. The lower appellate Court has rejected the said application, firstly on the ground that the advocate-commissioner’s report in respect of the suit schedule property is very much available on record in the connected clubbed suit OS No. 217 of 1994 and secondly, a similar application of the petitioners was dismissed by the trial court during the trial of the suit itself. The appeal being pending before the first lower appellate court from 2004 and being heard in part, the application at that stage was not considered and rejected. Aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is preferred. The learned counsel for the petitioners has made strenuous efforts to convince the court that the dispute relating to the extent of land is a crucial issue in appeal and the earlier report of the advocate-commissioner is only regarding the physical features and not relating to the extents of the properties. I am, however, not convinced to accept the said contention, inasmuch as the entire suit is at large before the lower appellate court and at this stage when the entire suit record is before the lower appellate Court, it is not permissible for the appellants to seek appointment of the advocate-commissioner for the purpose of measuring the respective extents of the properties. If at all, the appellants wanted to ascertain the extents of the properties, that should have been done when the suit was pending before the trial Court. The suit being for injunction only, the application is clearly misconceived and it was rightly dismissed by the court below. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 24.11.2010 KR