ORDER :-This Court ordered notice before admission on 31.7.2008 and granted interim stay for a limited period. Though the respondent had been served, none represents the respondent.

2. The revision petitioner is the appellant in AS No.153/2006 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The petitioner, as plaintiff, instituted the suit O.S. No.1039/2004 for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent/ defendant and her men from making any encroachment and making any constructions in the raastha shown as GG1 BB1 in the plaint plan. The specific stand taken by the revision petitioner/plaintiff is that the said raastha measures 12 links whereas the stand taken by the respondent/defendant is that the raastha is only 10 links. The respondent also had taken a stand that she was not at all constructing any compound wall in the disputed raastha and the construction of the compound wall by her in anyway would not obstruct the right of the petitioner to have ingress and egress.

3. It appears that the suit was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner had carried the matter by way of Appeal A.S. No.153/2000 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The revision petitioner/appellant also moved an application I.A. No.156/2007 under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as "Code" for the purpose of convenience, praying for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the suit locality as shown in the Schedule and to note down the location of the petitioner's house, respondent's house, the disputed raastha GG 1 BB 1 and to measure the above said raastha and file his report. In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties - the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application and also the averments made in the counter denying such allegations, the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, having formulated the Point for consideration at Para 4 recorded reasons at Paras 5, 6 and 7, referred to the decision in Bongu Ramulu v. Gudur Narender Reddy, 1998 (3) ALD 657 = 1998 (3) ALT 473 and Anthony Dass v. Sabasthayan, 1996 (1) CTC 472 and came to the conclusion that the relief cannot be granted and accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition had been preferred.

4. Sri T. V. Ramana Rao, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties relating to the width of the raastha, this question can be effectively adjudicated and whether raastha is of a width of 12 links or 10 links as contended by the parties only on appointment of a Commissioner to locally inspect and note down the physical features and filing a report. The Counsel also would maintain that the Appeal is continuation of the suit and the appellate Court also may appoint a Commissioner for noting down the physical features, if otherwise the appellate Court is satisfied that such appointment of Commissioner is essential for proper and effective adjudication of the matters in controversy. The Counsel also would maintain that even otherwise no serious prejudice would be caused to the other side even if a Commissioner to be appointed for the purpose prayed for.

5. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit as. No.1039/2004 aforesaid praying for the relief of permanent injunction which was dismissed. The matter was carried by way of Appeal A.S. No.153/ 2006 and an application IA. No.156/2007 was filed praying for appointment of Commissioner to inspect the suit locality as shown in the Schedule and to note down the location of the petitioner's house, respondent's house, the disputed raastha GG 1 BB 1 and to measure the above said raastha and file the report. It is no doubt true that there is some lapse of time in filing this application praying for appointment of Commissioner to make

Click Here to Read the rest of this document