IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3440 of 2009 Between: Andra Jagannadha Rao S/o. Ramulu …. Petitioner AND Dr. Dadi Abhivardhan S/o.Venkateswarlu & others …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3440 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner Andra Jagannadha Rao against the order dated 24-06-2009 in I.A. No. 613 of 2009 in O.S. No.922 of 2004 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to appoint an Advocate - Commissioner to note the physical features and to assess the possibility of leakage or seepage from the septic tank constructed by the petitioner – defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, respondent No.3 herein, in the suit and also to note the possibility of pollution of water in the well of the plaintiffs, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. 2. The suit was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for mandatory injunction for removing the septic tank constructed by the petitioner and respondent No.3. Earlier, on the petition filed by the petitioner in I.A. No.2953 of 2004, an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features of the septic tank constructed by him and the Advocate Commissioner executed the warrant and filed his report. After filing of the Commissioner’s report, respondent Nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) led their evidence and now the suit is coming up for the defendants’ (petitioner and respondent No.3 herein) evidence. At this stage, petitioner filed the present I.A. for appointment of an Advocate - Commissioner to note down the physical features and to assess the possibility of any leakage or seepage from the septic tank constructed by him. 3. The Court below rightly dismissed the I.A., since it is for the plaintiffs to establish the damage caused to them including the seepage from the septic tank and pollution of the water in their well and that they are entitled to mandatory injunction for removal of the septic tank so constructed. 4. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that the revision petitioner filed the impugned petition for appointment of Advocate Commissioner only to protract the litigation. The order of the Court below does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court and the revision is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ AUGUST 13, 2009. JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY KTL