M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dt. 19-08-2014 in I.A. No. 753 of 2012 in O.S. No. 104 of 2012 of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The petitioners herein are defendants in the suit.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for a perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with their alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. In the plaint, it is alleged by respondents that petitioners created certain documents in order to encroach on the southern side of the plaint schedule properties and they also attempted to close a channel by encroaching into the lands of respondents on the southern side of the plaint schedule properties.

3. Written statement was filed by 4th defendant/4th petitioner claiming that they have jointly purchased the lands adjacent to the plaint schedule properties and that the plaint schedule properties are to the north of the land of 4th petitioner and he had no necessity to interfere with the lands of respondents. They alleged that it was the respondents, who removed the survey stones and encroached into the land of petitioners and filed a false suit for perpetual injunction.

4. The Court below, at the instance of respondents, had appointed an Advocate-Commissioner ex parte and directed him to file a report as to the physical features of the suit locality. But in the said order, the Court below had not directed the said Advocate-Commissioner to take the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor. The Advocate-Commissioner filed a report in the Court below after conducting the survey.

5. Six months later the 4th respondent (sic. petitioner) filed I.A. No. 753 of 2012 before the Court below under Order XXVI Rule9 CPC to appoint the same Advocate-Commissioner, to direct him to inspect the plaint schedule properties with the help of Mandal Surveyor and to locate it and file a fresh report.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, he contended that although the Advocate-Commissioner had visited the suit locality, he had done so without the Mandal Surveyor to locate the suit property and it was not explained how the Advocate-Commissioner, who is a stranger, identified the suit locality without the help of Revenue Records. He contended that he and other petitioners filed objections before the Advocate-Commissioner asking him to inspect the suit locality with the help of Mandal Surveyor and Revenue Records and take down the measurements which are in Links, but he ignored the said objections. He therefore contended that the said report of the Advocate-Commissioner cannot be looked into and he is filing the present I.A. to set aside the earlier report and to appoint the same Advocate-Commissioner to execute the warrant with the help of F.M.B. and Mandal Surveyor, Tirupati Urban Mandal to decide who is the real encroacher.

7. This application was opposed by the respondents. They contended that both parties were present at the time of executing the warrant and no one disputed about the identification of the plaint schedule properties and after a lapse of nearly six months, the petitioners had come up with the present application seeking identification of the plaint schedule properties. They contended that there was no necessity to take the assistance of the Surveyor.

8. By order dt. 19-08-2014, the Court below dismissed the said I.A. It held that there was no necessity to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner since at the time of inspection of the suit locality by the Advocate-Commissioner appointed by it earlier, both parties were present and no one disputed about the identification of the suit property, and the present application had been filed by petitioners nearly six months after the said report was filed. It further held that it being a suit for mere injunction, there was no necessity for appointing an Advocate-Commissioner and that if the petitioners feel that they have any evide