( 1 ) HEARD, Sri Prabhakar, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners/respondent Nos. l to 4/plaintiffs and Sri Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel representing respondents/respondents 5 to 8.

( 2 ) THE question in controversy raised by both the parties in the present civil revision petition is no doubt simple, but, however, the said question is one of general importance. Several factual details had been narrated by both the learned Counsel regarding the historical background of this litigation, prior LGC No. 33 of 1994 and lgc No. 176 of 1995 and the findings recorded therein and even in relation to the identity of the property and the survey numbers in relation to which the findings had been recorded in the aforesaid LGC s, the subject-matter of the present suit and also in reference to Survey No. 310, which is not the subject-matter of the present suit. All the factual details may not be relevant for the present purpose. In IA No. 3603 of 2002 in O. S. Nol224 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, hyderabad, East and North Ranga Reddy district, the following docket order was made:"during the course of arguments both the counsels have agreed for the proposal that an Advocate-Commissioner be appointed for survey the land in Sy. No. 310 and suit schedule property and to fix its boundaries. Already Assistant Director of Survey and land Records had surveyed the Sy. No. 310 and submitted his report before the Special court for Land Grabbing Cases. I feel it I proper that if the assistance of the Asst. Director is taken, it will be easier for fixing the boundaries. Therefore for this purpose sri Mahesh Kumar, Advocate is appointed. He is directed to take the help of Asst. Director, Survey and Land Records and initially he should measure Sy. No. 310 and suit survey numbers and fix the boundaries. He can take the help earlier report submitted asst. Director in fixing the boundaries to Sy. No. 310 and he is also directed to submit his report about the location of sy. No. 307, 308, 313 and 314 and also fix boundaries of those Sy. Nos. His fee is fixed at Rs. 1,500. 00 shall be paid direcdy by the petitioner. The fee of the Asst. Director shall be borne by both the parties equally. For report call on 15. 11. 2002. "

( 3 ) THE warrant issued therein to the advocate Commissioner is as hereunder:"whereas it is deemed requisite for the purpose of this suit to appoint Advocate/ commissioner, Sri Mahesh Kumar, Advocate is appointed as Advocate/commissioner for this purpose. He is directed to visit the property i. e. , land admeasuring Ac. 4. 37 in sy. Nos. 307, 308, 313 and 314 (Sy. Nos. 307 ac. 1. 16 gts), 308 Ac. 0-16 gts. , 313 Ac. 0. 39 gts. And 314 Ac. 206 gts, and Sy. No. 310 adm. Ac. 2. 07 gts. , of Kakathiya Nagar, neredmet, Malkajgiri Mandal, measure and fix the boundaries of Sy. No. 310 and Suit sy. Nos. 307, 308, 313 and 314. He is also directed to take the help of Asst. Director, survey and Land Records in fixing boundaries of Sy. No. 310 and Suit schedule property. He is also directed to take the help of earlier report submitted by Assistant director in fixing the boundaries of Sy. No. 310 and suit schedule, Sy. Nos. 307, 308, 310, 313 and 314, and to fix the boundaries of sy. No. 310 and Suit schedule property. "

( 4 ) ON 14-10-2003, a memo was filed by the Advocate/commissioner, praying for clarification on the strength of the request made by Defendants 1 to 4 to earmark Sy. Nos. 310, 37, 38, 313, 314 with the assistance of the Original Village Map and the Assistant Director s report in LGC no. 176 of 1995. The operative portion of the said order reads as hereunder:"the Advocate Commissioner was appointed in this case for survey of the land in sy. No. 310 and to fix boundaries the Court in its order dated 24-10-2002 held that it is proper if the assistance of the Asst. Director is taken and to take the help of earlier report submitted by him. The earlier report of the asst. Director Sur