THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NO. 2196 OF 2010 Date of Judgment: 27.1.2011 Between: Golla Kayapati Narayana and another …Petitioners and Kmaaganikuntla Seshi Reddy ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NO. 2196 OF 2010 ORDER: Plaintiffs are the revision petitioners herein. They are aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court in I.A No. 710 of 2008 in O.S.No. 332 of 2007, dated 27.3.2010 whereby, at the instance of the respondent/defendant, the trial Court appointed Mandal Surveyor as commissioner to locate and report as to in which survey number ‘Marva pit’ and ‘channel’ demarcated by ‘Y’ and ‘Y1’ in plaint plan are situate. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs on the ground that earlier at the instance of the very respondent/defendant, an advocate commissioner was appointed in I.A.No. 899 of 2007 and his report with regard to physical features of the aforesaid pit and channel are already on record. Heard both sides. The plaint along with plan appended thereto is produced before this Court and it is evident that the land claimed by the plaintiffs including the existence of the said pit and channel appear to be far away from the land claimed by the respondent/defendant. Apart from that, the suit is only one for perpetual injunction, that too filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, whereas both these applications i.e., earlier application for appointment of advocate- commissioner and the present application for appointment of Mandal Surveyor were made by the defendant. It is not in dispute that the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the injunction in respect of suit land is a matter entirely for them to establish. Secondly, from the relief sought for in the plaint it is evident that it is claimed as a matter of right relating to the pit as well as the channel and it would not be relevant in which survey number the same exists and would also go beyond the scope of the suit. While the earlier application was allowed and the physical features are already before the trial Court through the report of advocate-commissioner, the impugned order requiring the Mandal Surveyor to survey and report as to in which survey number the pit and channel exists is, therefore, totally beyond the scope of the suit, but the same was not appreciated by the trial Court. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. The revision petition is accordingly allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court shall now proceed with the trial of the suit and decide the same expeditiously within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 27.1.2011 KR