HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.2963/2011 Dt.29-07-2011 Chittibomma Gopala Rao …..Petitioner V. . Chittibomma Seetha Lakshmi @ Vara Sitha Lakshmi ……Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.2963/2011 Oral Order In a suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, when the matter was coming up for arguments, the present petition is filed by the defendant to identify the plaint schedule property and to observe that an extent of Ac.3.27 cents land belonging to the defendant is a single plot and that there is fencing around the same and that there is a cement construction in that land and to observe such other physical features that may be brought to the notice of the Advocate-commissioner. On dismissal of the said petition, the present revision is filed by the defendant. The trial court while dismissing the petition observed that the defendant who was examined as D.W.1 has admitted in his cross- examination that the plaint schedule property is shown as two items ie., AC. 0.62 cents and Ac.0.41 in his title deed passbook and pattadar passbook, which are marked as Exs.B-2 and B-3; according to the defendant, he purchased the said property under a registered sale deed.; and when it is suggested to D.W.1 that Sri Sai Prasad filed suit against the plaintiff herein in OS No.114/1997 for partition of the plaint schedule property, he pleaded ignorance of the same stating that he does not know about the same and these suggestions clearly would show that the plaint schedule property is nothing but the property purchased by the defendant under Ex.B-1 and therefore it is not necessary to appoint an advocate commissioner. No infirmity is discernible in the impugned order passed by the trial court since the petitioner/defendant himself categorically admitted that he purchased the property under Ex.B-1 from Chittibomma Sai Prasad and his son, who filed suit against the plaintiff in OS No.114/1997 for partition of the plaint schedule property. In that view of the matter, the question whether the petitioner/defendant purchased the property covered under Ex.B-1 is a single plot or two plots has to be decided only basing upon the documents and therefore the appointment of commissioner at this stage is not at all warranted. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 29-7-2011 kmr