When this civil revision petition came up for admission, notice before admission was ordered on 25-7-2006 and interim stay was granted for a limited period, which is being extended.

2. The civil revision petition is filed against the docket order dated 4-7-2006 made in I.A.No.1381 of 2006 in O.S.No.1732 of 2000 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The revision petitioner, 4th defendant in O.S.No.1732 of 2000 filed an application I.A.No.1381 of 2006 in O.S.No.1732 of 2000 praying for the relief of summoning the Advocate Commissioner by name Sri R. Venkateswar Rao who was appointed as an Advocate Commissioner in O.S. No.1036 of 2000, which is pending before the same Court and also another Advocate Commissioner by name Sri A. Venkata Rama Narasaiah, who are practising Advocates in Warangal Bar Association as Court witnesses.

3. The learned Judge recorded certain reasons and ultimately allowed the application partly permitting the petitioner to examine A. Venkata Rama Narsaiah only and issued summons to A. Venkata Rama Narsaiah on payment of process. The revision petitioner, aggrieved by the other portion of the order negativing the relief of summoning Sri R. Venkateswar Rao had preferred the present civil revision petition.

4. Sri M. Rama Krishna, the counsel representing the revision petitioner would submit that the learned Judge having allowed the application partly negativing the other relief cannot be sustained. The learned counsel would also submit that even if the report of the Advocate Commissioner is in relation to yet another suit the examination of such Commissioner would be essential for the purpose of establishing relevant facts. The counsel also placed reliance on a decision in M. Rama Naidu and another v. B. Srinivasulu Naidu.

5. Per contra, Sri Madan Mohan Rao, the learned counsel representing the first respondent would submit that this is a suit for mere perpetual injunction and the report filed in yet another suit had been marked. It is not necessary that such Commissioner to be examined for the reason that the 1st respondent is not party to the said litigation. Hence the counsel would submit that the learned Judge exercised the discretion properly in allowing the application partly.

6. It is stated by the petitioner in I.A.No.1381 of 2006 that he is the 4th defendant in O.S.No.1732 of 2000 and the suit in O.S.No.1772 of 2000 filed by his mother were clubbed to be decided together and before clubbing, his father was examined as P.W.1 in O.S.No.1772 of 2000 and his evidence was treated as D.W.1 and the petitioner was examined as D.W.2. It is also stated that during the pendency of both the suits Smt. A. Sunanda filed an application in O.S.No.1036 of 2000, which is pending before the Court for localization of the suit land and in the said suit, the Court Commissioner Sri R. Venkateswar Rao was appointed to ascertain the suit land and the land of the neighbour Smt. Aktharunnisa begum, which is illegally claimed by Smt. A Sunanda, whether the land fell in S.No.38 or 441 (new). It is also stated that the said Commissioner, with the help of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Warangal, measured the new S.No.441 (old No.48) and old S.No.38 (presently merged in Aabadi) in which they purchased their respective properties. It is also stated that the Assistant Director found in the presence of all the parties and their respective counsel that the suit schedule property and the land of their neighbour Smt. Aktharunnisa Begums house which is situated at S.No.38 (old) are presently merged in Abadi and further found that S.No.441 (old S.No.48) is about 378 chains away from the suit scheduled property. It is also stated that they had obtained certified copy of the said report, which was marked as Ex.A-14 (B-14) to elicit the real facts from the mouth of the witness and other factual details in relation to the report of the Commissioner which had also been mentioned in the affidavit filed in sup