( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the plaintiff against the order of the principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, dated 22-11-2004.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and other reliefs in respect of plot No. 62, as described in the schedule. The contention of the plaintiff is that he purchased plot No. 62 by a registered sale deed, dated 14-8-1991 from his vendors in an approved lay out and that the defendant purchased plot No. 63 on 15-10-1990 through a registered sale deed, that the defendant encroached a portion of plot No. 62. Hence, he filed a suit for declaration of title and other consequential reliefs.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 1320 of 2004 under order 26 Rule 9 C. P. C. , for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection, measurement of Plot No. 62 belonging to the plaintiff, identification of plot No. 63 belonging to the respondent with the help of a surveyor by measuring both the plots according to the lay out approved by the Gram Panchayat.

( 4 ) THE respondent vehemently resisted the application on two grounds. (1) That the petition filed by the petitioner in an earlier suit for injunction was dismissed on the ground that a Commissioner cannot be appointed in a suit for injunction simplicitor; (2) that the plaintiff cannot gather evidence by measuring the land and note the physical features, etc. Therefore, he resisted the application for appointment of the Commissioner. The lower Court dismissed the application on the ground that the earlier order in a similar interlocutory application filed on the same set of facts seeking the same relief is a bar to the subsequent application. Being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, dated 22-11-2004, the petitioner filed the present revision petition challenging the order of the lower Court.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he purchased plot no. 62 in an approved lay out and the defendant encroached into a portion of Plot no. 62. Therefore he filed the suit for declaration of title and for removal of the structure by way of granting mandatory injunction, etc. He further submitted that the appointment of a Commissioner would help both the parties by identifying plot nos. 62 and 63 as per the respective sale deeds and as per the approved lay out, which will set at rest the dispute between the parties once for all and it will also help the Court to find out whether any portion of Plot No. 62 is encroached. Therefore, requested to set aside the order of the lower Court and direct the lower court to appoint a Commissioner for local inspection.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent submitted the same argument which was advanced before the lower court that similar application was dismissed in the earlier injunction suit and that the petitioner cannot be allowed to gather evidence in support of his suit and further contended that the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited and by exercising Article 227, the order of the lower Court cannot be set aside unless there is some perversity or illegality or injustice is caused to the petitioner. Therefore, requested to dismiss the revision petition by confirming the order of the lower Court.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment in Pandiri pedda Sidaiah and others v. Thirunagiri padmavathi, 1997 (5) ALD 430, wherein, the learned Single Judge while considering the scope of Order 26 C. P. C. , observed that the issue can be effectively settled by getting the lands owned by the petitioners as well as the respondent surveyed by the revenue authorities with the help of a village map and also tippons if they are available with the revenue authorities. By doing so, the litigation can be put to an end. But the Subordinate Judge by taking a technical ground dismissed the application which is not in accordance with law.

( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent submi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document