THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.5027 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is preferred against the order, dated 02.09.2009 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, in I.A.No.297 of 2009 in O.S.No.549 of 1999 whereunder and whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC to set-aside the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner, and to appoint another Advocate Commissioner, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner is the second defendant. The first respondent, who is plaintiff, filed the suit for permanent injunction. Respondents 2, 4 to 7 are defendants. Respondent No.3 died. 3. The plea of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Previously, he filed a petition under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and the same was allowed, but the Advocate commissioner could not execute the warrant in accordance with the direction of the warrant and as such, he filed the present I.A. to appoint another advocate to execute the warrant for measuring the plaint schedule property with the help of Mandal Surveyor and to note down the boundaries etc., 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is seen that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed in I.A.No.288 of 2004 and he executed the warrant in the presence of both parties with their respective counsel and filed his report. If the petitioner has any objections to the report, he ought to have sought for re-entrustment to rectify the deficiency in the report, but he cannot seek appointment of another advocate Commissioner for the same purpose by filing the present I.A. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Hence, the C.R.P. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J 30.10.2009 Stp