THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.508 of 2011 Date:24th June, 2011 Between: 1. Thonduru Chandrasekhara Reddy & Ors. ..... Petitioners AND Sareddy Pratap Reddy .....Respondent *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.508 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 10.02.2011, passed in I.A.No.24 of 2011 in O.S.No.36 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC and appointed an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property, to measure the lands of the petitioner and respondents, to fix up their respective extents, and to note down the existence of two bore-wells with the help of Mandal Surveyor. 2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.36 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula, Kadapa District. The plaintiff field the suit for declaration of title and for mandatory injunction seeking a direction to the defendants to remove two motors fixed to the bore wells. According to the plaintiff, the defendants encroached the land owned by him and installed two motors to the bore wells. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.24 of 2011 under Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC for the purpose of appointing an advocate-commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property etc. The defendants filed counter resisting the application. It is the case of the defendants that they purchased 50 cents and 23 cents under two registered sale deeds and thereby they possessed 73 cents and whereas, the plaintiff got Ac.4.23 cents under a gift deed. They asserted that the two wells situate in the land purchased by them. Various other proceedings have been stated consequent on dismissal of the injunction application filed by the plaintiff and they are not required to be dealt with in detail for disposal of this revision. It is suffice to say that the essence of the dispute is whether the two bore-wells and two motors are situate in the lands owned by the plaintiff or in the lands owned by the defendants. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.24 of 2011 seeking appointment of an advocate- commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property etc. 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 on the ground that no harm will be caused to the defendants if a commissioner is appointed and moreover, the physical features of the land in Survey No.94/1B are the crux of the issue. For better appreciation, I may refer para.8 of the impugned order, which reads as hereunder: “8. In this case as there is dispute with regard to existence of bore wells and in whose land they are situated. In these circumstances, it is necessary to appoint a commissioner. No harm will be caused to the respondents if a court commissioner is appointed. Moreover in this case the physical features of the land in S.No.94/1B are the crux of the issue. In the light of above decision, I feel that it is necessary to appoint a Commissioner in this suit in the facts and circumstances of the case. The point is answered accordingly.” The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants submits that the application moved by the respondent/plaintiff seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner is pre-mature, since the evidence has not been commenced in the suit. A further submission has been made that the defendants purchased 50 cents and 23 cents under two separate registered sale deeds and thereafter, they dug the bore- wells and installed the motors. In a way, his contention is that the two bore-wells and two motors are situated in the land purchased by them. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the two bore-wells and two motors are in the lands owned by the plaintiff. This factual aspect is required to be physically verified by the Commissioner. A further submission has been made that the trial Court having taken note of the necessity for the Commissioner to note down the physical features, proceeded to allow the application, and therefore, there is no flaw in the order passed by the trial Court warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The relief sought for by the plaintiff in the application moved by him before the trial Court is appointment of an advocate-commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property etc. The controversy between the parties is as to in whose lands two bore wells and two motors are situated. The report of the Commissioner as to the physical features in the suit land would avoid much oral evidence, which the parties are otherwise required to be let in. The learned Junior Civil Judge considered this factual aspect and proceeded to allow the application. I do not see any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:24th June, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.508 of 2011 Date:24th June, 2011