ORDER :

1. The order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, in I.A. No. 182 of 2020 in O.S. No. 389 of 2012, is challenged before this Court. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner for noting down the physical features and topography of the suit schedule property.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The suit was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for partition, separate possession and cancellation of Sale-Deed and rectification of Pahani Nakles, against the respondents/defendants. The petitioners filed I.A. No. 182 of 2020 seeking appointment of advocate commissioner for noting down the physical features and topography of the suit schedule property. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. No. 182 of 2020, the petitioners stated in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 as under :

“2. It is submitted that, we have filed the above suit for partition, separate possession and cancellation of Sale-Deed and rectification of Pahani Nakles, against the Respondents/Defendants. The evidence of either side is closed and the matter is at arguments stage and at this stage as the earlier counsel on record for the plaintiff was not co-operating with the plaintiffs and was acting against the interest of the plaintiffs as such the petitioners/plaintiffs were constrained to file a petition in I.A. No. 949/2019 in O.S. No. 389 of 2012 to revoke the Vakalat of Mr. Maaturi Kishan Rao, permitting the petitioners/plaintiffs to engage another advocate for continuing further proceedings in the main suit which was allowed by this Hon'ble Court. However the earlier counsel despite of repeated request of the plaintiff, failed to handover the office bundle of the above case as such the petitioners/plaintiffs were constrained to file C.A. for certified copies of the documents.

3. It is submitted that, on verification it is revealed to our present counsel on record that the Respondent/Defendant No. 4 in his cross examination denied that the crimination of our father and forefathers are kept in the suit schedule property, particularly when their graves are existing in the suit schedule property.

4. It is further submitted that the Respondent/Defendant No. 4 also disputed the boundaries of the suit schedule properties as such in view of the above submissions it is just and necessary that the boundaries of the suit schedule property and the correct topography of the suit schedule property has to come before this Hon'ble Court for proper adjudication of the above suit.”

4. The respondents/defendants filed counter affidavit in I.A. No. 182 of 2019 denying the allegations of the petitioners. It is stated in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit as under:

4. In reply to Para 2 of the affidavit in support of the petition filed under Section 151 CPC, it is submitted that the entire allegations leveled in Para under reply are false, baseless and incorrect. It is submitted that the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a false and speculative suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit Schedule A, B and C properties situated at Sanghiguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, RR District against me and other respondents/defendants, wherein, I have filed my detailed written statement denying the allegations leveled in the plaint, in the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff No. 1 has been examined as PW-1 and petitioner/plaintiff No. 3 has been examined as PW-2 and I have been examined as DW-1, the case is coming up for arguments, at this stage, the petitioners/ plaintiffs have filed this petition to reopen the case for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and topography of the suit schedule properties. It is pertinent to mention here that the suit is for partition and separate possession, it is a prima