THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4975 OF 2010 DATED: 24.01.2011 Between : Ganisetti Subba Rao & others. … Petitioners And Chennam Ramakrishna and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4975 OF 2010 ORDER : The Revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.441 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku. The respondents herein / the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit schedule property as well as injunction. The defendants / revision petitioners filed I.A.No.910 of 2000 for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to measure the boundary line in respect of the suit schedule property and the same was ordered. Pursuant thereto, the Advocate-commissioner submitted a report. Contending that the Advocate-commissioner had no knowledge about the survey, the defendants filed I.A.No.2720 of 2006 for appointment of another commissioner to measure the land in dispute. They also filed I.A.No.2778 of 2006 with a prayer to ignore the earlier report of the Advocate-commissioner. Both the said applications were dismissed by the trial Court and aggrieved by the same the 1st defendant filed CRP Nos.93 & 172 of 2007. This Court by order dated 1.12.2008 dismissed the Revision Petitions observing that unless and until the Commissioner is examined and found that he has no knowledge of survey, the report submitted cannot be set aside nor a new Commissioner can be appointed. Thereafter the 1st defendant filed I.A.No.717 of 2009 for appointment of survey knowing commissioner on the basis of the admission of the advocate- commissioner in his evidence that he had no knowledge of survey. The said application was allowed by order dated 2.7.2009 and a new commissioner was appointed to take measurements of the suit property with the help of the Mandal Surveyor, Deputy Inspector of Survey and title deeds of the parties only to the extent of measurements not covered by the report of the commissioner appointed earlier. Challenging the same, though the plaintiffs filed C.R.P. No.4196 of 2009, the same was dismissed by this Court by order dated 22.01.2010. Thereafter, the advocate-commissioner appointed in I.A.No.717 of 2009 sought to execute the warrant with the help of the surveyor after giving notice to both the parties. However the warrant could not be executed in spite of number of extensions granted by the Court and it was represented by the Commissioner that he could not proceed with the survey due to non-availability of the surveyor. Ultimately the Court below by order dated 14.7.2009 adjourned the matter to 12.8.2010 for the report of the Commissioner stating that in the event of failure to file such report the appointment of the Commissioner should stand cancelled and he should return the warrant automatically without any further order. On 12.8.2010 the commissioner filed his report before the Court. However the defendants/revision petitioners filed a fresh application being I.A.No.1701 of 2010 with a prayer to relax the condition imposed in the order dated 14.7.2010 in I.A.No.717 of 2009 and to grant some more time for executing the warrant pleading that in spite of several efforts the Commissioner could not execute the warrant within the time granted due to unavoidable circumstances. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs and the Court below after hearing both the parties dismissed the application by order dated 31.8.2010. The said order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendants. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Court below committed an error in dismissing the application ignoring the fact that the report submitted on 12.8.2010 was inconclusive since the measurements of the land in question were admittedly not taken. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the matter was being protracted by the defendants deliberately on one pretext or other and taking advantage of the delay the defendants had removed the bunds existing on the land in question and having found that there were no bona fides on the part of the defendants in seeking further extension, particularly in view of the fact that the Conditional Order dated 14.7.2010 had worked itself out, the Court below had rightly dismissed the application. As could be seen from the material available on record, the commissioner was appointed by the Court below by order dated 2.7.2009 in I.A.No.717 of 2009 for survey of the land in question with the help of Mandal Surveyor, Deputy Inspector of Survey, by taking measurements as per Field Measurement Book (FMB) and other documents. The said order was upheld by this Court in CRP No.4196 of 2009 on 22.01.2010. Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner was directed by the Court below on 2.3.2010 to execute the warrant and file his report by 7.3.2010. Thereafter the matter underwent several adjournments upto 14.7.2010 to enable the Commissioner to execute the warrant and to file his report. On 14.7.2010 the Commissioner filed a Memo stating that the warrant could not be executed due to non-availability of the Surveyor. Having considered the same, the Court below adjourned the matter finally upto 12.8.2010 making it clear that in the event of failure of the commissioner to file his report by that date, his appointment should stand cancelled. In compliance with the said order, the commissioner filed his report on 12.8.2010 stating that he had inspected the suit locality on 7.8.2010 in the presence of the counsel for both the parties and the property in question was identified, however the measurements could not be taken since the lands of both the parties and also the surrounding lands were completely transplanted. It was also stated that no documents were given by either party and copy of FMB was not available. The report also referred to the Memos dated 1.8.2010 and 3.8.2010 submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendants making allegations against each other about the removal of the bunds existing on the land in question. According to the Revision petitioners/defendants, the said report dated 12.8.2010 being inconclusive did not serve the purpose for which the Commissioner was appointed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that unless the measurements of the land in question are taken in terms of the order in I.A.No.717 of 2009 the very purpose of appointment of the commissioner would be defeated and therefore it is necessary in the interest of justice to grant further time to the Commissioner for execution of the warrant by taking the measurements. As noticed above, from 2.3.2010 onwards the matter underwent number of adjournments till 14.7.2010 to enable the Commissioner to execute the warrant. On appreciation of the material available on record, it was found by the Court below that the defendants, at whose instance the Commissioner was appointed, failed to take diligent steps for execution of the warrant by taking the measurements of the land in question soon after the crops were harvested and before the transplantation of the next crop had taken place. In the light of the finding so recorded by the Court below, particularly in view of the allegations of removal of the bunds made by the parties against each other which might have resulted in alteration of measurements, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the Court below had committed any error in declining to grant further extension. It is also relevant to note that the report dated 12.8.2010 was already taken on record by the Court below and the application was closed. Hence the application subsequently filed by the defendants / revision petitioners for extension of time is misconceived and cannot be maintained and therefore on that ground also the application was rightly dismissed by the Court below. At any rate, the discretion exercised by the Court below in declining to grant extension of time on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and having found that no convincing reasons were made out for granting extension warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 24.01.2011 gbs