ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the orders dated 13.11.2015 in I.A. No. 740 of 2015 in I.A. No. 181 of 2015 in O.S. No. 303 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. This application in I.A. No. 740 of 2015 is filed under Order-26 Rule-9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to appoint advocate commissioner for making local investigation by surveying and demarcating the property claimed by the defendants as per the plaint annexed to the registered sale-deed dated 20.08.1965 and A and B schedule properties belonging to the plaintiffs with the assistance of the Surveyor attached to the Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District. The application in I.A. No. 740 of 2015 was filed in I.A. No. 181 of 2015 filed under Order-39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC during the enquiry. The plaintiffs have filed the original suit in O.S. No. 303 of 2015 and the defendants have also filed their written statement. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs have flied I.A. No. 181 of 2015 for temporary injunction under Order-39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. During the enquiry, in this application the plaintiffs have filed the present application for appointment of advocate commissioner for survey of the schedule property and the property claimed by the defendants.

3. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 740 of 2015 was allowed and Sri. D. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate, was appointed as advocate commissioner for the purpose of local investigation for suit schedule A and B properties and the schedule property as per the registered sale-deed dated 20.08.1965 with the assistance of Surveyor attached to the Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District and to file his report along with the rough plan to the specific direction to the advocate commissioner not to mention as to in possession of the suit schedule properties. Further, the Advocate Commissioner shall give notice to both the parties and their counsel before execution of the warrant. Be it stated that as per the Case Status Information, as on the date, the learned Advocate Commissioner has not submitted his report.

4. The defendants have filed this civil revision petition assailing the order impugned alleging that the Court below erred in appointing the advocate commissioner in a suit for perpetual injunction at the premature stage. The plaintiffs have filed various speculative suits in O.S. No. 509 of 2014 on the file of VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District and O.S. No. 1275 of 2014 on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District describing the distinct numbers, extents and boundaries and in all those suits interim injunction applications have filed under Order-39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, but they were dismissed and that the plaintiffs have not assigned any reason for appointment of advocate commissioner.

5. In fact, during enquiry in I.A. No. 181 of 2015 filed under Order-39 Rules-1 and 2 CPC, the plaintiffs have filed the present application for appointment of advocate commissioner to make local inspection by surveying and demarcating the property claimed by the defendants as per the registered sale-deed dated 20.08.1965 and schedule A and B properties. The defendants have referred to various proceedings before the revenue authorities with reference to the ownership and possession of Mohd. Ahmed Ali in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 5.00 guntas in Survey No. 194/1 of Begumpet village alleging that the second defendant being lawful purchaser and possessor of the properties commenced construction of apartments or individual villas in the said land. But, the Court below erred in allowing the application at this premature stage to localize the properties claimed under registered sale-deed dated 20.08.1965 and schedule A and B properties. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants relied on the princi