( 1 ) THIS Court ordered Notice before Admission.

( 2 ) SRI D. Seshadri Naidu, learned counsel entered appearance representing respondents.

( 3 ) SRI T. Jagadish, the learned Counsel representing Sri V. Mehar Sreenivasarao, the learned Counsel for revision petitioners plaintiffs made the following submissions : the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners had placed the report of the commissioner before this Court and would contend that the point from which, the measurements to be taken, in fact, had not been properly fixed and the procedure to be followed under the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act also had not been followed. The learned Counsel in all fairness would submit that it is no doubt a lapse on the part of the petitioners-plaintiffs in not raising objections to the report of the commissioner, but, however, this application filed under peculiar circumstances may have to be considered on a different footing, for the reason that what is being prayed for is the scientific investigation for the purpose of actual localization whether the plaint schedule property falls within S. No. 224 or 225. The learned Counsel also explained the scope and ambit of "expert investigation" and had placed strong reliance on Section 75 (e) read with Order 26 Rule 10 (A) of the Code of civil Procedure (Hereinafter for short referred to as code ). The learned Counsel would maintain that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, inasmuch as the relief prayed for is for the purpose of localization of the property by a higher authority by way of scientific investigation, it could have been just and proper on the part of the learned Judge to appoint a commissioner as prayed for instead of dismissing the application The learned counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his contentions.

( 4 ) SRI D Seshadri Naidu, learned counsel representing the respondents had taken this Court through the affidavit filed in support of the application before the learned n Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal and would contend that none of these contentions had been at least whispered in the affidavit filed in support of the application, as are being raised before this Court The learned Counsel also would maintain that what is being prayed for, is the appointment of second Commissioner without recording reasons why the first Commissioner s report cannot be relied upon or by setting aside the report of the first Commissioner and hence, such appointment cannot be made. The learned Counsel also relied upon certain decisions in this regard. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel also would maintain that in fact, even objections had not been raised to the report of the Commissioner and such parties who had not raised even objections, cannot be permitted to move an application under the guise that the present appointment of commissioner is of "expert investigation". The learned Counsel also would maintain that this is a suit for injunction simplicitor and in such a suit, normally, Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose for which, it is being prayed for as in the present case. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard while concluding, the learned Counsel would maintain that this is a civil revision petition filed under Article 277 of the Constitution of india and the same being supervisory jurisdiction, the impugned order cannot be disturbed while exercising powers under the said provision.

( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsel on record and perused the impugned order

( 6 ) THE revision petitioners filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order made in I A. No 218 of 2005 in o S No 297 of 2001 on the file of the ii Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, whereunder, the application filed by the petitioners under Order 26 Rule 9 read with section 151 of the Code, for appointment of commissioner to no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document