THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1191 of 2011 Dated 15th April, 2011 Between: Gurugubelli and others …Petitioners And Singru Polinaidu and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri D.Rama Lingaswami Counsel for respondents: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 18.02.2011, in I.A.No.37 of 2011 in O.S.No.128 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondents for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the joint pathway of the respondents. The petitioners resisted the suit by filing the written statement, wherein they have inter alia taken the stand that no pathway is in existence and that the suit schedule property is exclusively their private property. Earlier in I.A.No.192 of 2005 filed by the respondents, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to localise the suit schedule property and note down the physical features of the same. The Advocate Commissioner appointed has filed his report on 29.07.2007. When the suit was coming up for arguments after completion of the trial, the petitioners have come up with the present IA, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to localise the suit schedule property and note down the physical features and the constructions, if any, made on the site. The Court below dismissed this application. Therefore, the petitioners filed the present civil revision petition. I have heard Sri D.Ramalinga Swami, learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record. The facts noted above would reveal that already an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for localising the property and noting down the physical features. It has come out at the hearing that the petitioners have not even filed objections to the Advocate Commissioner’s report. In the face of a report already filed by the Advocate Commissioner and in the absence of any objections filed by the petitioners, they cannot be permitted to come up with an application for the same purpose for which an Advocate Commissioner was earlier appointed, who has submitted his report. Therefore, the petitioners failed to make out any case whatsoever for appointment of another Advocate Commissioner. After carefully considering the entire facts of the case and the reasons assigned by the Court below for dismissing the IA, I do not find any merits in this civil revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.1690 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th April, 2011 VGB