1. The revision petitioner in these three revisions is the sole defendant/respondent in (i) I.A.No.473 of 2014 in I.A.no.182 of 2014 in O.S.no.146 of 2014; (ii) I.A.no.472 of 2014 in I.A.no.187 of 2014 in O.S.no.148 of 2014; and (iii) I.A.No.490 of 2014 in I.A.no.180 of 2014 in O.S.no.144 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have perused the material record.

3. The facts, which led to filing of these three revision petitions, may be stated as follows:

The plaintiffs/petitioners in the aforementioned three applications in the said three suits are different. However, the said plaintiffs in the said suits filed the said suits respectively for specific performance of respective agreements of sale. In the three pending suits, the three applications viz., I.A.Nos.182, 187 and 180 of 2014 are respectively filed by the respective plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunctions in respect of the schedule properties in the said suits. Pending enquiry in those applications, the first mentioned I.A.nos.473 of 2014, 472 of 2014 and 490 of 2014 are respectively filed by the plaintiffs for appointment of an advocate Commissioner to note down the nature of the plaint schedule properties in the respective suits. Indeed, the appointment of a commissioner was sought to note down whether plaint schedule property in each suit is a hayrick yard or an agricultural land. The respondent/defendant had filed a counter resisting each of the said applications. The trial Court by a common order, which is impugned in these revisions, had allowed the petitions and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the respective suit schedule properties in the three suits and note down as to whether the plaint schedule property in each suit is a hayrick yard or an agricultural land. Therefore, the aggrieved respondent/defendant had filed these revisions.

4. To begin with, it is necessary to refer to the pleadings of the parties, which are common. The case of the plaintiff/s in support of the request in the aforementioned three applications in the three suits for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the aforesaid purpose, in brief, is this: Each of the three suits is filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale and for consequential permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property involved in each suit. The plaint schedule properties in the three suits are being used by the plaintiff/s as a hayrick yard. To prove the said fact, photographs are filed along with the plaints in the three suits. However, the respondent/defendant is claiming that the respective plaint schedule properties in the three suits are agricultural lands and that the suit schedule properties in all the three suits are parts of a huge extent of land in Sy.nos.211 to 219. Therefore, it has become necessary to seek appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the respective suit schedule lands in the three suits and to note down the nature of the respective suit schedule lands i.e., to note down as to whether the schedule land in each suit is a hayrick yard or an agricultural land.

5. The common defence of the respondent/defendant, who is resisting the applications filed for appointment of Commissioner in the three suits, in brief, is this:

The suit land in each of the three suits is an agricultural land and it is part and parcel of Ac.40.00 cents of land in Sy.Nos.211, 212, 213, 216, 218 and 219. The respondent/defendant did not sell any land to anybody and he is in possession and enjoyment of his land. The plaintiff/s in three suits has/have no semblance of right over the respective plaint schedule properties. The boundaries mentioned in the respective suit schedules are created. The photographs filed along with the plaints in the suits do not depict the reality. When the plaintiff/s in the respective suits