IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1164 of 2008 Between: Smt.Bogi Swarna Gowri …Petitioner A n d Kadimisetti Appala Raju Chetty and two others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1164 of 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the docket order dated 01-02-2008 in I.A.No.1320 of 2006 in O.S.No.29 of 2004, on the file of the IV-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatam, wherein the report of the Advocate-Commissioner was accepted subject to the objections filed by the petitioner/defendant and the request for re-entrustment of warrant was not acceded to. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. The petitioner herein (defendant) filed written statement contesting the suit. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1320 of 2006 for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to make a local inspection and note down the physical features of the suit property and the disputed constructions. The Advocate-Commissioner was appointed and he executed a warrant and filed a report. The petitioners herein filed work memo before the Advocate-Commissioner. After filing of the report, the petitioners filed objections to the Commissioner’s report. In the last paragraph of the said objections filed on 07-12-2007, the petitioners requested the Court to reject the report of the Commissioner and re- entrust the warrant to the Commissioner for execution with reference to the sale deeds of the parties and authenticated documents like FMB of that locality. The trial Court, by the impugned docket order, observed that the petitioner herein (defendant) has not filed any work memo to the effect that measurements be taken as per the respective sale deeds or FMB and, therefore, there is no justification for the said objection. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the warrant itself directs the Commissioner to take down the measurements of sites of both parties with reference to their sale deeds. The Commissioner has in his report stated that measurements were taken with the help of the Surveyor. If the said measurements were not taken with reference to the sale deeds, as directed in the warrant, it is open to the petitioner-defendant to question the same at the appropriate stage and he can cross-examine the Commissioner on the said aspect. The re-entrustment of the warrant for the said purpose is not called for at this stage, especially when no application is filed for the said purpose by the petitioner-defendant. The trial Court, in the impugned order, has not overruled the objections raised by the petitioner-defendant and, on the other hand, directed that the report of the Commissioner be received subject to the objections by the parties. 4. In the circumstances, it is considered that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 19th April, 2011 Lrkm