HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3034 OF 2008 DATE:18-02-2011 BETWEEN The Gram Panchayat, Avanigadda, Rep. by its Executive Officer …Petitioner AND Yakkati Veenadevi (Died) & others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3034 OF 2008 ORDER: Petitioner-defendant filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the dismissal order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda in I.A.No.1326 of 2007 in O.S.No.69 of 1999, dated 26.3.2008. Plaintiffs-respondents herein filed the above suit against the petitioner-gram panchayat for permanent injunction, in which, they filed I.A.No.1142 of 2001 for appointment of an advocate-commissioner. On allowing the said I.A., the advocate-commissioner inspected the suit locality and filed his report on 15.3.2005. When the said advocate-commissioner measured the suit schedule property in the presence of both the counsel and parties, no objection has been raised as to the manner in which the commissioner has executed the warrant as per the work memos, if any, filed. Thereafter, the defendant gram panchayat-petitioner herein filed I.A.No.362 of 2006 to appoint an advocate-commissioner and the same was inadvertently allowed by the lower Court on 8.9.2006 since when the earlier commissioner’s report is already on file, unless the said report is eschewed, no fresh commissioner can be appointed. The advocate-commissioner, who was appointed in I.A.No.362 of 2006, returned the warrant and therefore, another advocate-commissioner was appointed on 13.03.2007, who also returned the warrant on 14.11.2007 sating that both the parties are not cooperating with him. This itself shows that the petitioner-gram panchayat itself was not cooperating with the advocate-commissioner, who was appointed at its instance. Now, the petitioner-gram panchayat filed the present impugned I.A. for the very same purpose for appointing another advocate-commissioner to demarcate the boundary of R.S.No.294/3 and 294/4 of Avanigadda with reference to intact survey stones with the help of District Surveyor with reference to F.M.B, and to note in which survey number ABFGH and CDEF passage of plaint plan lies as per F.M.B., and draw a sketch with reference to measurements. It shows that the earlier report filed by the commissioner is not favourable to the petitioner- gram panchayat. If that be the case, proper remedy for the petitioner is to see that the report is eschewed from the file and for the same, the petitioner has to plead necessary evidence to the said effect and only after the said report is eschewed, the Court can appoint another commissioner. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 18, 2011 Tsr.