Heard Sri K. Narasimha Rao representing Sri Syed Naimullah Shakeel, the Counsel representing Revision Petitioner.

2. Respondents had been served and proof of service had been filed. None represents the respondents.

3. Sri K. Narasimha Rao, the learned Counsel representing Revision Petitioner would maintain that no doubt an application for appointment of Commissioner was made in I.A.No.26/2006 in O.S. No.146/2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet, but at that time, respondents 2 and 3 were not parties and inasmuch as liberty was given to move appropriate application after impleading those parties, at the appropriate stage this application was filed and hence, there is no bar to maintain the present application. The learned Counsel also would maintain that in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, inasmuch as, this is a boundary dispute as to the identity of the private land and the adjacent Government land, unless a Commissioner is appointed for the purpose of localizing the plaint schedule property, it may not be possible to decide the disputed questions between the parties. The learned Counsel also would maintain that in the light of the clear stand