Challa Kodanda Ram, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners who are the defendants in O.S. No. 9 of 2007 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. The suit is filed seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, workmen etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is an agricultural dry land of Ac.10-00 guntas situated in Sy. No. 98 (98/) of Avuravani village, Narketpally Mandal of Nalgonda District. Suit is at the stage of arguments, particularly the defendants arguments. At that stage I.A. No. 330 of 2015 is filed seeking to reopen the suit and for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the suit schedule as per the work memo to be filed by both the parties. As per the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., the petitioners have been contending that the suit schedule property was in their possession and enjoyment for a long time. The suit schedule property is only a portion of the land in the entire survey number and according to them they have made developments in the land which would show their possession and enjoyment. Unless an Advocate Commissioner is appointed to note the various physical features such as available water resources, irrigation channels, mosambi garden and localization of the suit schedule property in the total extent of the survey number great prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. The grant of relief in the I.A. was resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs. Learned Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, after considering the case on merits dismissed the I.A.

2. Sri Chitturu Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that while reiterating the averments in the I.A. affidavit and by drawing specific attention of this court to the pleading in the written statement particularly about the existence of bore wells and the water sources unless these aspects are brought on record the controversy in issue cannot be resolved. It is the case of the petitioners that, as pleaded by them in the written statement, it is only by virtue of interim injunction granted by the Court respondents-plaintiffs unlawfully entered into the possession and unless this court reopens the case and appoints Advocate Commissioner great prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. He submits by placing reliance on the judgments of this court in Yeera Ayyanna v. H. Marthamma, 2009 (1) ALD 548, B. Lalita Devi v. Special Court under A.P. land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1992 Law Suit (AP) 381 : 1993 (1) ALT 204 and K. Dayanand and another v. P. Sampath Kumar, 2015 ALT 560 and contends that in exercise of the inherent power of the court under Section 151 of CPC, the Court has ample power to grant relief and further there is no bar for appointment of Advocate Commissioner if the same is helpful in deciding the controversy in issue, as such no prejudice would be caused to the respondents.

3. On the other hand Sri P. Sriharsha Reddy by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bagai Construction v. Gupta Building Material Store, (2013) 14 SCC 1 would submit that the reopening of the evidence is impermissible and such reopening of the case at belated stage under Section 151 C.P.C. is impermissible. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.

4. Having considered the rival submissions one thing may be noticed that the IA was filed invoking inherent powers of the court under section 151 CPC. CPC does not provide any specific provision for reopening of a case after completion of recording evidence. It is only for that reason petitioners had invoked the inherent power under Section 151 CPC. The invoking of inherent power under Section 151 C.P.C. in the facts of the present case is for bringing of further evidence in the form of an Advocate Commissioners report by the petitioners. In that view of the matter,