This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by docket order dated 18.10.2012 passed in I.A.No.378 of 2012 in O.S.No.101 of 2012 (I.A) on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District.

The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit.

The plaintiff filed O.S.No.101 of 2012 against the defendants for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property situated in Survey No.410, near Dharmavaram, Anantapur District (property). The claim of the plaintiff is that she got property in Survey Nos.411/1, 2 and 3 also. As there is dispute with regards to the identity of the property, the defendants filed the I.A. for appointment of Commissioner to note down the physical features and to demarcate the property in Survey No.410 along with Survey Nos.411/1, 2 and 3 with the help of Mandal Surveyor. The Court below, through the impugned order dated 18.10.2012, allowed the I.A. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the matter is at the initial stage, appointment of an advocate commissioner directly leads to collection and gathering of evidence.

Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that while conducting the survey or carrying out the commissioner’s work, necessary direction may be given to the concerned authority to localize the property with the help of an authenticated revenue documents, including the relevant FMB and also to take the video.

What is important here is that the respondents are not at all claiming the suit schedule property. There is only identity dispute, which can be settled. There is no question of collection of any evidence against the interest of the plaintiff. If there is no localization of the property/properties there will not be proper disposal of the suit and confusion or ambiguity or uncertainty will prevail in the minds of the parties which is very unhealthy and detrimental to the parties as it leads to unnecessary prolongation of the litigation. Once there is clear demarcation of the property there is every likelihood of effecting compromise between the parties which will enable them to live in peace and tranquility. Apart from that only a qualified surveyor will properly demarcate the properties. It is futile to assert that that can be done by adducing oral and documentary evidence before the Court because any amount of oral evidence in that behalf is not suffice to do so. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence to be adduced before the Court necessary relief can be granted in favour of one of the parties but it will be meaningless unless there is clear demarcation of the properties and the litigation in fact ends thereby. The parties approach the Courts for resolving their disputes or for the redressal of their grievances which the Courts have to take care of. Justice cannot be denied or delayed for want of fulfilling certain technicalities.

The same view was taken in Haryana Waqf Board v Shanti Sarup (2008) 8 SCC 671) under similar circumstances. In that decision, a suit was filed for declaration and injunction in respect of certain property. The matter went up to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the form of filing second appeal where it was dismissed on the ground that it was concluded by concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below whereby the matter was taken to Supreme Court. The Supreme Court on the analysis of the facts and circumstances of the suit observed and held as follows.

The dispute that was raised by the parties before the court was whether the respondent had encroached upon any land belonging to the appellant Board. Therefore, it cannot be in dispute that the dispute was in respect of the encroachment of the suit land.

Admittedly, in this case, an application was filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was rejected by the trial court but in view of the fact that it