ORDER :

Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is the order of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, dated 14/12/2017 in I.A.No.482 of 2017 in O.S.No.322 of 2012 pending on the file of the said court.

2. Heard the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. By the material available on record, it is clear that the Revision Petitioners are defendants 1 and 2, respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs and the third respondent is defendant No.3 to the suit.

4. The Revision Petitioners herein moved an application vide I.A.No.482 of 2017 before the trial court with a prayer to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner for noting down the physical features of the suit schedule property, more particularly to observe the road that leads from the main road to the land of the petitioners, invoking Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. The respondents 1 and 2 herein resisted the said application by filing a counter.

6. Considering the contentions and the rival contentions of both parties, the trial court came to a conclusion that there exists no need or necessity for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner and therefore, the petition is not maintainable. The observations made by the trial court and the consequent dismissal of the Interlocutory application are under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

7. In the grounds of Revision, it is contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the fact that noting down the existence of 18 feet road from the main road to the site of the petitioners would not amount to collection of evidence and the trial court illegally and contrary to the settled principles of law, dismissed the application and the finding of the trial court that the application is moved to identify the suit schedule property is perverse and the order of the trial Court is opposed to the very spirit and object contemplated under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the said order has to be set aside.

8. Having given anxious consideration to the submission of both counsel, the points that emerge for consideration are:

1. Whether there exists any justifiable ground for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property along with the existence of road/path-way therein.

2. Whether there exists any infirmity in the order of the trial Court either in appreciating the facts of the case or in applying the established principles of law to the said facts, as contended by the revision petitioners, which in turn requires the interference of this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction.

9. Point No.1:

Stating about the merits in the relief sought for, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners never claimed any right or title over the property of respondents 1 and 2 and their only contention is that there exists a passage of 18 feet and for bringing the same to the notice of court, there is no other option except to seek appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for noting down the said aspect and therefore, the petitioners rightly moved an application for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to note down the same, but the trial court, misguided with the submission of respondents 1 and 2, dismissed the said application and the petitioners never intended to collect any kind of evidence through the report of Advocate-Commissioner and thus, aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the petitioners are before this court for justice.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 stated that the entire evidence on both sides is completed and sufficient material is brought on record for just disposal of the case and that, observing the same and further observing the fact that there exists no necessity for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, the trial court rightly d