THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3726 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in O.S.No.364 of 2001, aggrieved by the order, dated 12.07.2010, passed on a memo filed by the respondent/defendant. O.S.No.364 of 2001 was filed for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, at the first instance, I.A.No.1758 of 2006 filed by the petitioners was allowed appointing advocate commissioner to make local inspection and report whether any constructions are made in the land covered by Survey No.577. Subsequently, on the ground that eastern boundary of the suit schedule property was wrongly mentioned as Survey No.577 instead of Survey No.579, the petitioners filed I.A.No.382 of 2009 seeking amendment of the plaint schedule. The said I.A. was dismissed, which was also confirmed by this Court. At that stage, the respondent/defendant has filed a memo to recall the warrant of commission, which was entrusted to the Advocate Commissioner. Thereupon, the Court below passed the impugned order, in which, it recorded a finding that if the Advocate Commissioner is allowed to execute the warrant for survey of the land with wrong boundaries, it would create some more problems for adjudication of the issue, and thereby, directed the Advocate Commissioner to return the warrant of commission. It is to be noticed that the order appointing the Advocate Commissioner has become final and was not challenged. Merely because I.A.No.382 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint schedule was dismissed, that by itself is no ground to entertain the memo filed by the respondent/defendant to recall the warrant issued to the Advocate Commissioner. It is also to be noticed that in the order passed in I.A.No.1758 of 2006, the Advocate Commissioner was directed to verify whether any constructions are made in the land covered by Survey No.577, which is the subject matter of the suit. In that view of the matter, merely the finding recorded by the Court below in the impugned order that if the warrant is executed, it would result in some more problems, cannot be the reason to recall the warrant issued to the Advocate Commissioner. When the order appointing the Advocate Commissioner has become final, which is not questioned, the Court below has erred in recalling the warrant of commission by entertaining the memo filed by the respondent/defendant. For the aforesaid reasons, the order, dated 12.07.2010 passed in I.A.No.1758 of 2006 in O.S.No.364 of 2001 is hereby set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th SEPTEMBER, 2010. kvni