THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.R.P. No. 1150 of 2010 O R D E R: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order made in I.A. No. 103 of 2010 dated 10.3.2010 on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge, Kavali, whereunder an application filed under Order XXVI Rule 16 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to appoint an advocate-commissioner to harvest the standing crop and to sell away the same, was ordered. Petitioners are the defendants. Respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent-plaintiff filed suit – O.S. No. 173 of 2007 seeking permanent injunction and he filed I.A. No. 103 of 2010 under Order XXVI Rule 16 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to appoint an advocate-commissioner for harvesting the standing crop in the petition schedule property. The same was resisted by petitioners- respondents. The Court below passed the following order: “In the result, the petition is allowed. Mr. K. Surendra Reddy, advocate, Kavali, is appointed as advocate- commissioner for the purpose of visiting the petition schedule property and to get the standing paddy crop thereon harvested and to sell the same in public auction and to deposit the sale proceeds into the Court. The remuneration is fixed as Rs.2000/- and the same is payable by the petitioner directly to the commissioner. The commissioner is also directed to issue prior notices to both parties before executing his warrant of commission and the petitioner is directed to bear all the expenses which could be incurred for executing the warrant of commission i.e. expenses towards operations of harvesting, storing the paddy crop and for its sales etc., and the commissioner is further directed to deduct those expenses which incurred by the petitioner from the sale proceeds of the standing crop and to return the same to petitioner under receipt and to deposit the remaining sale proceeds into the Court along with his report on or before 25.3.2010”. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It appears, the said order made in I.A. No. 103 of 2010 was worked out even before passing of the interim order by this Court on 15.3.2010, inasmuch as, the warrant of commission was entrusted to the commissioner on 11.3.2010, notices were issued by the advocate- commissioner on 12.3.2010 and inspection of the spot was done on 14.3.2010 at 3 p.m. Even when the advocate-commissioner inspected the spot on 14.3.2010, there was no paddy crop existing in the petition schedule property and, as per the observation of the advocate- commissioner, the said crop was cut away recently, however, hayrick was kept in the petition schedule property and as there was no paddy crop existing, he was unable to harvest the same. The fact that by the time advocate-commissioner inspected the spot on 14.3.2010, paddy was already harvested is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Under those circumstances, the C.R.P. has become infructuous and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 07-6-2010. MVB.