( 1 ) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 23 of 2001 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. He filed the suit against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, he filed two applications, one under order 39 Rule 1 C. P. C. , for temporary injunction, and another being I. A. No. 146 of 2001 under Order 26 Rule 9 C. P. C. , for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Both the applications were ordered ex parte. The Advocate Commissioner filed a report noting down the physical features, alleged to be of the suit schedule property.

( 2 ) THE respondents filed I. A. No. 396 of 2004 for appointment of another Advocate commissioner. According to them, the appointment of Commissioner by the Court in I. A. No. 146 of 2001 was without notice to them and that the petitioner had mislead the Commissioner at the time of noting down the physical features. This application was resisted by the petitioner. Through its order dated 29-10-2004, the trial Court allowed the LA. The petitioner challenges the same.

( 3 ) SRI P. Sridhar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document