THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP Nos.1706/2008 and 1707/2008 Date of Order: 23-12-2010 CRP No.1706/2008: Between: 1.Jasti Sarada and others ..Petitioners and Masunuri Srinath ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP Nos.1706/2008 and 1707/2008 Oral order: Since the parties in both the revision petitions are one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. The revision petitioners are the defendants in OS No.1479/2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. They filed two IAs, namely, IA No.123/2008 under Order 18 Rule 17 and Sec.151 CPC to recall D.W.1 for giving evidence on the documents filed by them; and IA No.129/2008 under Order 8 Rule 1(3) and Sec. 151 CPC to receive the documents, namely, (1) Certified copy of the plaint in OS No.1807/2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada; (2) Certified copy of the written statement of D-2 in OS No.1807/2002; (3) Certified copy of report filed by the Commissioner/advocate in IA No.3288/2003 in OS No.1807/2002 and mark them as exhibits, by condoning the delay, if any, in filing the same. The trial court by a common order dt. 8-4-2008 dismissed both the petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petitions have been filed by the defendants. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction in respect of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.3-12 cents situated in R.S.No.161/2 of Pedapulipaka village of Penamaluru Mandal. In the affidavit filed in support of the above petitions, it was stated that the plaintiff filed OS No.1807/2002 against Aluri Sambasiva Rao and another, who are neighbouring landowners on the other side of the suit schedule property, alleging that they encroached an extent of Ac.0-02 cents of land. In the said suit, an advocate commissioner was appointed. He filed his report. Therefore, plaint, written statement and commissioner’s report are necessary documents to prove the case of the defendants and they may be received as documents and they may be permitted to recall D.W.1 for giving evidence on those documents. It is not in dispute, commissioner appointed in OS No.1807/2002 was also appointed as Commissioner in the suit on hand. The commissioner appointed in the present case has also filed his report along with survey report and he was examined on behalf of the petitioners/defendants. It is the case of the petitioners that the report filed by the Commissioner in the earlier suit ie., OS No.1807/2002 is not favourable to them. Since the petitioners/defendants are not accepting the commissioner’s report filed in OS No.1807/2002, the trial court rightly thought that there is no necessity in bringing the said report into evidence and dismissed both the petitions. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned common order warranting interference by this Court. The revision petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.23-12-2010 kmr