ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order, dated 15.02.2023 passed in I.A. No. 46 of 2019 in O.S. No. 515 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole (for short “the Court below”).

2. The impugned I.A. No. 46 of 2019 in O.S. No. 515 of 2018 was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 26 Rule 9 and Section 151 of CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the plaint plan property, to note down the physical features, to take photos, to take measurements if necessary as per work memos submitted by the parties and to submit a report.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners and the respondents are neighbours. There is a Rasi Nadava (passage) in between their properties and there were some disputes in between them. The petitioners got issued notice dated 2.12.2017 to the respondents and others, particularly, Ongole Municipal corporation, for getting laid concrete cement road in the passage. Thereafter, the defendants got issued reply notice dated 7.12.2017 with a false claim by mentioning the suit in O.S. No. 62 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole filed by the 2nd defendant against the petitioners and others. The petitioners got issued rejoinder dated 18.12.2017 to the defendants advising the defendants to go through the partition deed dated 4.10.1957 and note that the existence of passage and by advising to remove the walls raised by the defendants. After construction of the walls blocking passage by the defendants, the petitioners do not have any access from the northern road and their legal right is infringed. Thereafter, the respondents got issued reply dated 20.12.2017 by reciting some old documents that too by suppressing the facts. The defendants have got lodged caveat petitions. Hence, the petitioners got issued a legal notice dated 12.2.2018 to the defendants by advising them to go through the old documents, particularly the sale deed dated 19.7.1992 by demanding the defendants to remove the walls put up by the defendants in the passage, and issue a no objection/request letter to the municipality for laying concrete cement road in the passage and dig canals on both sides of the road. Thereafter, the defendants also got issued reply notice dated 16.2.2018 in a provoking manner. The defendants got lodged caveat petitions. Hence the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit to declare the passage (Rasi Nadava) as public passage to get removal the walls and gates put up the defendants to block the passage to restrain the defendants from creating hurdles for free usage of the passage, to compensate the loss caused to them etc., and thereafter their advocate advised to file a petition for appointment of an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the properties and the passage. Hence, the petitioners/ plaintiffs filed the impugned petition. After careful consideration and on perusing the entire material available on record, the trial Court has allowed the said petition without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition came to be filed.

4. Heard Sri N. Madhava Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri N. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the trial Court is contrary to law and weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. He submits that the Court below gravely erred in allowing the impugned I.A. by appointing Advocate Commissioner to visit t