HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4994 OF 2009 Friday, the thirtieth day of October, Two Thousand and Nine Between Omprakash Gupta and another Petitioners AND Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Rep. By its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road Hyderabad and others Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 4994 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the learned VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A. No. 442 of 2008 in IA No. 639 of 2008 in O.S. No. 2532 of 2006 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of construction existing over the premises No. 21-2-186 and 187, Charkaman Hyderabad. The petitioners are the plaintiff in the above suit. Along with the suit they filed IA No. 639 of 2006 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents 3 and 4 from carrying on construction over the premises No.21-1- 186 and 187, Vallabdas, Charkaman, Hyderabad, which was allowed by order dated 3.11.2006, but the respondents 3 and 4 in violation of the sanctioned plan raised construction. As such, the petitioners herein have complained to the respondents 1 and 2 herein, in vain. Therefore, the petitioners sought for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down whether the respondents 3 and 4 have raised construction as per sanction plan or not. The case of the first respondent is that since validity of permit No. 135/25 dated 10.2.2006 itself is questioned in the suit, there is no question of violation of the order dated 3.11.2006 by the respondents 3 and 4. It is case of the respondents 3 and 4 that the construction is in terms of the sanctioned plan and they have applied for BPS Scheme for conversion of their building into commercial usage and is pending with the first respondent. It is also their case that an Advocate Commissioner was already appointed to note down the physical features of the premises and there is no necessity to appoint an Advocate Commissioner again for the same purpose. The court below, on extensive consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, allowed the petition appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of construction existing over the premises No. 21-2-186 and 187 situated at Charkaman, Hyderabad on the eastern side of petitioner’s No.1 property and on the west of petitioner’s No.2 property. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed, by the plaintiffs inter alia contending that the court below went wrong in appointing the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of constructions over the premises restricting only on eastern and western side of the property of petitioners 1 and 2, which is against the order passed in IA No. 639 of 2006 dated 3.11.2006. It is not in dispute that earlier an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he submitted his report on 23.10.2007, with regard to the physical features of common passage lying on the west and north of property but he did not inspect the entire suit schedule property. The claim of the petitioners in this petition is that the respondents 3 and 4 are proceeding with construction in contravention of the sanctioned plan towards their property. Therefore, the court below is right in appointing the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the construction on the eastern and western side of the petitioners property, in violation of the sanctioned plan. Admittedly, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and submission of his report is in respect of noting down the physical features is with regard to the common passage alone. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 that already an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he submitted report and there is no need to appoint an Advocate Commissioner cannot be accepted. Having gone through the impugned order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari October 30, 2009 MAS