THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.4321 and 4638 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.506 of 2008 and 15 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy at Medak District filed applications in I.A.Nos.152 of 2010 and 198 of 2010 in the said suits respectively seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for measuring the land in Sy.No.168 of Kollur village, Ramachandrapuram mandal, Medak district, for the purpose of localizing their suit plots as per the lay out sanction plan. By orders dated 01-04-2010, the Court below dismissed the applications. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs approached this Court by way of these two revisions. It was the case of the plaintiffs before the Court below that they purchased Plot Nos.49, 50/P (plaintiff in O.S.No.506 of 2008) and 61 (plaintiff in O.S.No.15 of 2008) situated in Sy.No.168 of Kollur village, covered by a lay out sanctioned by the Gram Panchayat, Kollur. They claimed to have purchased these plots under registered sale deeds from the original owner of the land, one Goplaram Chinna Lachaiah @ Chakali Lachaiah through his GPA holder Jithender Reddy. The defendants in the suit are the sons and widow of Latchaiah, since deceased. The cause for filing the suits for perpetual injunction, as per the plaintiffs, was the alleged action of the defendants in interfering with their possession over the plots purchased by them and their acts in disturbing the boundary stones of the schedule plots and also the boundaries of the entire lay out. Having failed to secure temporary injunction in the suits, the plaintiffs filed the present applications seeking identification and localization of their plots as per the alleged lay out plan through an Advocate Commissioner. The Court below found that the photostat copy of the lay out plan filed by the plaintiffs indicated that the land admeasuring Ac.0-30 guntas plotted thereunder was situated in both Sy.Nos.160 and 168 of the village and it was not restricted to Sy.No.168 alone. In such circumstances, the Court below rightly opined that it would not be possible to decide as to what extent out of the Ac.0-30 gts., which is said to have been plotted under the lay out falls in Sy.No.168 and what extent is situated in Sy.No.160. Further, keeping in mind the established principle of law that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of gathering evidence, the Court below held that it was for the plaintiffs to prove their case on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and accordingly dismissed the applications. This Court finds no grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the Court below. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs failed in their endeavor to secure temporary injunction against the defendants in the suits. As matters stand, their very entitlement to the suit relief is challenged by the defendants as they claim that late Latchaiah never executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Jithender Reddy, who is said to have secured the lay out from the Gram Panchayat. The plaintiffs would therefore have to prove their claims on the strength of their own case. At this stage, no cause is made out for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of physical identification of the plots claimed by the plaintiffs. All the more so, as such a task cannot be undertaken by an Advocate Commissioner independently. Viewed from any angle, the orders passed by the Court below do not warrant interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J August 26, 2011 PN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.4321 and 4638 of 2010 August 26, 2011 PN