ORDER :

This Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.07.2022, dismissing the I.A.No.330 of 2022 in O.S.No.200 of 2018 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, filed by the plaintiffs under Order XVI Rule 14 and Section 151 of C.P.C., to issue summons to the Mandal Surveyor, Kakinada Rural Mandal, to give evidence as court witness as he assisted the Advocate Commissioner appointed in I.A.No.807 of 2018.

2. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.807 of 2018, seeking appointment of the Commissioner. When the said application was allowed and an advocate was appointed as Commissioner for taking measurements at the plaint scheduled property, help of a Mandal Surveyor was ordered. Now, the petitioners contend that the Commissioner could not properly answer the work memo points submitted and also follow the directions in the warrant and therefore, the objections to the report of the commissioner were filed and that when the Commissioner was examined as P.W.6, the plans drawn by the Commissioner were marked as Ex.C2 to C4 which were furnished by the Mandal Surveyor who assisted her. The petitioners further contended that the commissioner stated in her evidence that she filed those plans without verification and expressed ignorance regarding them and therefore it necessitated the petitioners to summon the Mandal Surveyor to give evidence about those plans.

3. When the notice was given to the respondent/defendant, no counter was filed. After hearing both sides, on perusing the record and considering the submissions, the petition was dismissed by the trial Court observing that the appointment of commissioner is only to localize and measure the properties of both parities with the Mandal Surveyor and basing on the documents of both parties and as per the orders in I.A.No.807 of 2018, under the Commissioner, with the help of the Mandal Surveyor, submitted the report with plans and further PW6 stated in the evidence as regarding the survey conducted and therefore the contentions raised by both parties in respect of Ex.C1 to C4 would be decided after completion of trial Court while appreciating the evidence.

4. Having agreed by the order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed stating that the Court ought to have allowed the said petition to know the encroachment made by the defendant in the plaint schedule property and that the Mandal Surveyor had wrongly shown in the map and the report as though the property of the petitioners under Ex.A1 to A3 are extended into the land in Sy.No.329/1 also, but they are situated in Sy.No.332 of Thimmapuram Village only. It is further contended that the Commissioner/P.W.6 expressed ignorance about the plans filed under Ex.C2 to C4 and therefore, it is necessary to examine the Mandal Surveyor, but the trial Court failed to appreciate the importance of the evidence of Mandal Surveyor to adjudicate the matter.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions of the petitioner in the grounds of revision.

6. M/s. Gnanusha, learned counsel representing the counsel for the respondents argued that though the respondent did not file counter to the petition, it is open for the respondent to show to the Court that the relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted. So, she further argued that the petitioners seek to summon the Mandal Surveyor as a Court witness in order to bring the evidence which they