T. Sunil Chowdary, J.

1. This revision petition is filed by the respondent/defendant assailing the order and decree dated 10.11.2014 passed in IA No. 828 of 2013 in OS No. 47 of 2008 on the file of Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram (hereinafter referred to as, the trial Court). The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court to avoid confusion.

2. The facts leading to filing of the present revision petition, in brief, are as follows: The respondent filed OS No. 15 of 2008 before the trial Court for declaration and consequential injunction against the petitioners and others in respect of an extent of Acs. 40.89 cents in Survey Nos. 5, 7 and 31/1 of Kella Village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The first petitioner filed OS No. 47 of 2008 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram for perpetual injunction against the respondent in respect of wet land admeasuring Acs. 8.70 cents in Survey No. 5 of Kella Village, and the said suit was transferred to the trial Court. The trial Court clubbed OS No. 15 of 2008 and OS No. 47 of 2008 and recorded the evidence in OS No. 15 of 2008. During the pendency of the suits, the petitioners filed IA No. 828 of 2013 in OS No. 47 of 2008 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property, constructed pucca house and the existing crops therein, and submit the report. After hearing both parties, the trial Court allowed the petition on 10.11.2014 appointing the Advocate Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved by the order and decree of the trial Court, the respondent filed the present revision petition.

3. Heard Sri Sivalenka Rama Chandra Prasad, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-respondent and Sri V. Ch. Naidu, learned Counsel for the respondents-petitioners.

4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-respondent is three fold: (1) the trial Court failed to consider that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in IA No. 828 of 2013 are not parties in OS No. 47 of 2008; (2) the trial Court, without considering the recitals of plaint in OS No. 47 of 2008, allowed the petition on assumptions and presumptions; and (3) the order of the trial Court is not sustainable either on facts or on law.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents herein-petitioners submitted that the trial Court rightly considered the scope of both suits and allowed the petition. He further submitted that the appointment of Advocate Commissioner no way affects the legal rights of the respondent.

6. Now, the points that arise for consideration, in this revision petition, are:

1. Whether the trial Court is justified in allowing IA No. 828 of 2013 or not?

2. Whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court?

Point Nos. 1 and 2:

7. Both the points are inter-linked and hence, I am inclined to address both the points simultaneously, in order to avoid confusion or repetition.

8. It is an admitted fact that the respondent filed OS No. 15 of 2008 for declaration and consequential injunction in respect of an extent of Acs. 40.89 cents (Acs. 13.56 cents in Sy. No. 7, Acs. 11.23 cents in Sy. No. 5, Acs. 16.10 cents in Sy. No. 31/1) of Kella Village of Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The petitioners 1 to 3 are defendants 1, 4 and 8 respectively in OS No. 15 of 2008. The first petitioner filed OS No. 47 of 2008 seeking perpetual injunction against the respondent in respect of an extent of Acs. 8.70 cents in Sy. No. 5 of Kella Village. Survey No. 5' of Kella Village is the subject-matter in both the suits.

9. The first petitioner, who is sole plaintiff in OS No. 47 of 2008, along with defendant Nos. 4 and 8 in OS No. 15 of 2008 filed the petition seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner in order to localise the house constructed by him in Sy. No. 5. If really the first petitioner constructed the house prior to filing of OS No. 47 of 2008, he might have mentioned the same in the plaint. I ha