THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3072 of 2011 ORDER: 1 This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC by the respondent No.5 in E.A.No.174 of 2010 in E.P.No.488 of 2010 aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2011 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal whereby the petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner was allowed. 2 Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the decree holders in the suit filed for injunction simplicitor. E.P.No.488 of 2010 is filed under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC stating that after grant of decree in favour of the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner herein has intentionally and deliberately interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the property. Alleging that the petitioner herein had caused damage to the standing crop of cotton, which was existing in the suit schedule property and also spoiled the water storage sump on 30.06.2010, the respondents 1 and 2 filed E.A.No.174 of 2010 before the Court below under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features in the schedule property and the said application was allowed and an advocate commissioner was appointed for the said purpose, by order impugned in this revision. 3 It is the case of the petitioner that there is also a decree in his favour with regard to the suit schedule property and that he has filed an execution petition against the decree holders in the present suit and his sons. In the counter filed in E.A.No.174 of 2010, it is specifically pleaded by the petitioner that he never damaged the cotton crop or spoiled the water storage sump as he is an old aged person of 81 years and not able to move to the place where the damage is alleged. The Court below allowed the said application and appointed an advocate commissioner to ascertain whether there is any damage to the crop and also to the water storage sump as alleged. 4 In this revision, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not open for the respondents to seek for appointment of an advocate commissioner in execution proceedings. The learned counsel relied on a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Allahabad Bank Vs. Sourendra Nath Shaw and another and also on a judgment of this Court in B. Narasappa Vs. B.Govindappa. 5 On the other hand Sri A. Prabhakar Rao learned counsel for the respondent contended that in view of the specific denial of the petitioner with regard to the damage of the standing crop and spoiling of the water storage sump, to adjudicate the dispute, there is every necessity for appointment of an advocate commissioner. It is contended that in view of the fact situation, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not render any assistance to the case of the petitioner. 6 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned in this revision and also the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In Sourendra Nath Shaw case (1 supra), when the condition of the damaged premises was required to be inspected by making a local inspection, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that it falls within the purview of Order 39 Rule 7 but not under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. Even in B. Narasappa case also this court confirmed the order of the lower court. But, from the text of the said judgment the nature of the dispute is not known. In this case, it is to be noticed that in spite of a specific assertion by the respondents that there is damage to the crop and water storage sump on 30.06.2010, the petitioner has denied the same in his counter. In view of the nature of the dispute, it cannot be said that no commissioner can be appointed. Having regard to the fact situation, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner referred above, do not render any assistance in support of the arguments advanced by him to hold that the order passed by the court below is not valid. 7 As this Court is of the view that for adjudication of the dispute it is necessary to appoint an advocate commissioner, as was rightly done by the Court below. 8 For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of power under Section 115 of CPC. This Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. --------------------------- 25.11.2011 R.Subhash Reddy, J. Kvsn