( 1 ) THE plaintiffs are the respondents and the defendants the petitioners. The parties shall be referred to by the status in the suit. PLEADINGS IN BRIEF AS DISCLOSED by RECORD

( 2 ) THE pleadings on record disclose that the plaintiffs and the defendants are claiming to be owning an extent of Acs. 4-10 guntas and Acs. 10-00 of land in Sy. Nos. 484, 485 and 486 of Bachupally village, Ranga Reddy district. While the claim of the plaintiffs is based on the sale deed of the year 1967, while that of the defendants, is based on the sale deeds from the year 1993 and onwards. It appears that when the defendants tried to interfere with the possessions of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed the suit O. S. No. 239 of 2000 on the file of the Principal senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, praying to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, from interfering with their extent of land. While the suit is pending, the plaintiffs moved an application in I. A. No. 2089 of 2001 under Order XXVI rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of civil Procedure, 1908 praying to appoint a surveyor, contending that there are boundary disputes between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and for settlement thereof, it is necessary that a surveyor should be appointed. The defendants resisted the application. However, the court below, by reason of the order impugned in this C. R. P. allowed the application. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE AT THE bar

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submitted that the present application filed by the respondents plaintiffs for appointment of surveyor to demarcate the boundaries is not maintainable having regard to the fact that the application I. A. No. 473 of 2000 filed by the plaintiffs for the very same relief on an earlier occasion, which was allowed by the trial Court, was subsequently set aside in revision by this Court in C. R. P. No. 3715 of 2000 by its order dated 12-12-2000, and therefore , the said order operates as res judicata in respect of the present application. The learned counsel for the petitioners defendants in support of his contention that the order of this Court in C. R. P. No. 3715 of 2000 dated 12-12-2000, having become final between the parties, the present application in respect of the very same relief, would be barred and the doctrine of res judicata would squarely apply, placed strong reliance on the judgments of the apex Court in Satyadhyan v. Smt. Deorajin Debl, Y. B. Patil v. Y. L Patil, prahlad Singh v. Sukhdev Singh and dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde, and the judgements of various High Court in Punjab and Sind Bank v. M/s. Manjit Properties Pvt, ltd. , Narain Das v. II Addl. District Judge, moradabad and Nitya Nanda Ghosh v. Alo rani Ghosh.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submits that the respondents-plaintiffs do not own any property in the survey numbers in question. The boundaries given by the plaintiffs are incorrect and their claim in respect of the property is not supported by any documents. According to him, the disputes between the parties are not with respect to boundaries or identification of the property, but are one with respect to rival claim of title and possession in the same survey numbers, which cannot be decided unless evidence is let in, and if the impugned order passed by the Court below appointing a Surveyor to demarcate the boundaries is allowed to be sustained, it would amount to delegating the power of the court to the Surveyor to interpret the documents, collect evidence on behalf a party and give a finding on the question as to who is in possession of the property, which cannot be permitted. To sustain this argument, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of various High courts in Basanta Kumar v. Baidya Kumar, puttappa v. Ramappa, Union of India v. M/s. Kripal Industries and Bongu Ramulu and another v. Gudur Narender Reddy.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants c