1. This revision is directed against the order dated 07.12.2009 passed in I.A.No.995 of 2009 in O.S.No.120 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir, whereby and whereunder, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.120 of 2004 seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to fix up the boundary between the suit land admeasuring Ac.3-38 guntas and the land of the respondents admeasuring Ac.3-10 guntas in Survey No.319 with the help of a Surveyor.

2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this revision by the petitioner-plaintiff, in brief, are:-

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.120 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir. He filed the suit against the respondents-defendants for perpetual injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3-38 guntas comprised in Survey No.319/AA. The respondents-defendants filed written statement admitting the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of Ac.3-38 guntas in Sy.No.319/AA. It is contended by the defendants that the 1st defendant is the owner of the land adjacent to the land of the plaintiff. Structures including trees existing on the bund belong to the 1st defendant and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. They further pleaded in the written statement that the land of the plaintiff is a wet-land and whereas the land of the 1st defendant is a dry land. Both parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. While the suit was coming up for arguments, the petitioner-plaintiff filed I.A.No.995 of 2009 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to fix boundary between the suit land, i.e., Ac.3-38 guntas in Sy.No.319 and the land of the respondents-defendants , i.e., Ac.3-10 guntas in Sy.No.319 with the help of a Surveyor. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A.No.995 of 2009, the petitioner asserted that that the respondents-defendants disturbed the boundary during the pendency of the suit, and therefore, the same is required to be restored to its original position. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.995 of 2009, which reads as hereunder:-

“That I filed the suit against the respondents/defendants for perpetual injunction in respect of suit land bearing Sy.No.319/AA admeasuring Ac.3-38 guntas and evidence of both sides is closed and matter is posted for arguments. As per the pleadings in written statement and oral evidence of both sides the respondents/defendants are not claiming the right, title or possession over the suit land belonging to me and the Dw.1/D.No.1 clearly admitted that they are only having right, title and possession over the land bearing Sy.No.319 admeasuring Ac.3-10 guntas which is adjoiningly situated on the northern side of the suit land. In the written statement the defendants did not plead that their land is converted as wet by the time of filing of suit and stated it as dry land. However during the cross examination Dw.1 admitted that two years prior to his deposition (on 29-7-2009) he got dug bore well and converted some part of land as wet. But, in fact the said convertion is after filing of suit by encroaching into my suit land by removing boundary fencing. The respondents/defendants disturbed the boundary during the pendency of suit which is to be restored to its original stage as on the date of filing of the suit. As per the admissions of respondents/defendants the suit is to be decreed straightaway as they are not claiming any land out of suit land. If the suit is decreed without refixing the boundary line between Ac.3-38 guntas suit land and land of Ac.3-10 guntas land of defendants by way of demarcation there will be house in getting the decree as turbel with demarcation will remain unsettled leading to day-to-day quarrels. When both sides are admitting their actual extents held and possessed in suit survey number 319 there will not