HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO Dated 27-4-2010. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5059 OF 2009 Between: Kaja Rama Rao and others. …Petitioners. And: Ketharaju Satyanarayana and another. ...Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5059 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel. The petitioners herein are the defendants who filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to assail the order of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, passed in I.A.No:341 of 2009 in O.S.No:22 of 2009 on 14.9.2009, rejecting the application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. The case of the petitioners in brief is that: At the instance of the respondents/Plaintiffs, an application was filed in I.A.No.81 of 2009 in O.S.No.22 of 2009 seeking to appoint the Commissioner to measure the sites of the 2nd petitioner and the plaint schedule site, to fix the boundary, with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor and F.M.B. and to draw a plan and to note the physical features and file his report and plan. On that, an exparte order was passed appointing the commissioner. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to the 3rd petitioner who is the sister of the 2nd petitioner and at the time of purchasing the property from her, a retired Government Surveyor viz., P.Ramamohanrao found that some structures of the respondents are encroached on the site of the 2nd petitioner and that on the apprehension that the neighbours may raise objection, the respondents deducted some amounts out of the sale consideration paid to the 3rd petitioner. Therefore, it is highly desirable to appoint a commissioner to demarcate the plot of the 2nd petitioner and the plaint schedule property, to fix the boundaries in between them, to draw a plan as per scale with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor and F.M.B and to note the physical features at the suit locality and to file his report. The trial Court having observed that the remedy for the petitioners is to file a separate suit for mandatory injunction and seek for the removal of constructions that are in his property, dismissed the application. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, an application was filed by the plaintiffs seeking for the appointment of a commissioner and on that, a commissioner was appointed. The present application is filed by the defendants for the self same relief and therefore, it amounts to abuse of process of the Courts. If at all the petitioners have got any objections, they can as well raise their objections to the report of the commissioner. Apart from that, it appears that the commissioner has not yet been examined as a witness. If that being the case, it is always open to the petitioners to cross examine the commissioner on the basis of the objections raised by them to the report of the commissioner. In this view of the matter, I feel that the order of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and thereby, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO Dated 27-4-2010. Dvs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5059 OF 2009 Dated 27-4-2010.