DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the order dated 25th September, 2000, in LA. No. 459 of 1998 in O. S. No. 162 of 1998 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda.

( 2 ) IN I. A. No. 399 of 1998 the trial court appointed under the provisions of order XXVI Rule 9 C. P. C. , a commissioner to note the physical features of the suit lands and a Bode said to be in existence in the suit lands. Commissioner inspected the suit property. She filed her report dated 10-8-1998 in the court. The said appointment of commissioner was made on a petition filed by the plaintiff. After the commissioner filed her report, the defendants, who are the respondents in this revision petition, filed second application in I. A. No. 459 of 1998 to appoint a commissioner to note the physical features and also to note the existence of other source of irrigation to the plaintiff, etc. The trial Court appointed a second commissioner overruling the objections made by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by that order dated 25th September, 2000, the plaintiff filed this revision petition.

( 3 ) AT the time of appointing the second commissioner, the trial Court observed that the first commissioner did not serve notice on the first defendant about her inspection, the report of the first commissioner is inconsistent and the observations therein are contradictory to one another. Taking into consideration the fact that the first commissioner ceased to practise in that court, the trial court appointed the second commissioner. At this juncture it is necessary to point out that at the time of appointing the second commissioner, the trial court did not reject the report of the first commissioner filed on the basis of the appointment of commissioner in I. A. No. 399 of 1998. The trial court relied upon a decision of this Court in Guthula Satyamma and others v. Rudraraju Venkataraju and others (1998 (5) ALT 95 = 1998 (5) ALD 410 ). In that case the two reports of the first commissioner were found conflicting and causing confusion and therefore a second commissioner was appointed. The appointment of second commissioner was upheld by this court in the above decision.

( 4 ) IN the present case also, the trial Court observed in the impugned order that it is dissatisfied with the report of the commissioner. The reasons for the dissatisfaction with the report of the first commissioner are not explicitly stated by the trial court in its order. A reading of the entire impugned order gives the impression that trial court s opinion that there are inconsistencies and observations are contradictory to one another appears to be the basis for dissatisfaction felt by the trial court. The inconsistency or contradictory observations, as stated by the trial court, is that in the answers given to the work memo filed by the plaintiff s advocate, the commissioner stated that there is A. B. C. D. Bode in the suit lands and in the answers given to the additional work memo filed by the plaintiff s advocate, the commissioner stated that there is no Bode at C. D. point. Therefore, the trial court observed that thus the commissioner s report is inconsistent and also self-contradictory one. At the time of hearing of this revision petition, the learned advocate for the revision petitioner read the entire report filed by the commissioner. There are no inconsistencies or self contradictory observations in the report of the first commissioner. Perhaps the trial court did not read the first commissioner s report in correct perspective. One work memo was given by the plaintiff s counsel to the commissioner before the commissioner reached the suit property. On the spot, additional work memo was given by the plaintiff s counsel. In the first work memo, the commissioner was requested to note suit Bode. Answering the first work memo, the commissioner stated that she noted the disputed Bode as a. B. C. D. , in her sketch. In the additional memo given by the plaintiff, the commissio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document