IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of a second Commissioner should only occur if the report of the first Commissioner is unsatisfactory and the court is dissatisfied with the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit before the lower Court.

3. This civil revision petition is filed challenging the propriety and legality of the order dtd. 26/7/2022 passed in I.A.No.129 of 2022 in O.S.No.102 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Jangaon.

4. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.129 of 2022 in O.S.No.102 of 2013 under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the lands in Survey Nos. 562 and 560 of Palakurthy Village and fix their boundaries with the help of Tippons and Village Map on the spot to enable the Court to come to a conclusion in respect of the location of the lands of the respective parties.

5. The plea of the petitioner/plaintiff is that he filed a suit for declaration of his title to the suit land measuring Ac.2.14 gts in Survey No.562, but according to the defendants the suit land is part and parcel of Survey Nos.560 and 562, but not Survey No.562 alone and the petitioner's land and the land of respondents/defendants are situated adjacent to each other and there are no boundary stones on the spot and so fixation of boundaries for Survey No.562 and 560 is necessary to know whether their lands are situated in Survey No.562 or 560 and that such survey of the lands of both the survey numbers by the Assistant Director of Survey and land records with the help of Tippons is necessary to enable the Courts to decide the matter in issue. The respondents/defendants filed counter strongly opposing the plea of the petitioner for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and contending that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed in I.A.No.285 of 2013 in O.S.No.211 of 2005 by the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon for demarcation of the lands in Survey No.560 and 562 of Palakurthy Village with the assistance of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Janagon and the Commissioner filed report on 9/8/2019 and so there are no bonafides in the petitioner filing the present petition and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. PERUSED THE RECORD:

6. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession of 462 sq. yards with compound wall and shed situated in Survey No.562/A as shown in plaint 'A' schedule and also for declaration of title, perpetual injunction and mesne profits in respect of Ac.0.12 Gts in Survey No.562/A as shown in the plaint 'B' schedule.

7. The allegation of the plaintiff as can be seen from para 2 of the plaint is that defendant No.1 in the absence of the plaintiff from the village, illegally occupied the plaint 'A' schedule property which is situated in the middle of Survey No.562/A and constructed a poultry shed on the land and compound wall in the year 2005 after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat stating that the land is part and parcel of Survey No.560/A.

8. The plaintiff in para 3 of the plaint stated that the 1st defendant filed O.S.No.211 of 2005 for perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.0.8 gts of land contending that it is situated in Survey No.560 and obtained temporary injunction against him from the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Janagon.

9. The 1st defendant along with a Memo filed the report of the Advocate Commissioner and also the warrant of appointment in I.A.No.285 of 2013 in O.S.No.211 of 2005 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon. Undisputedly, the plaint 'A' schedule land is the same land which is in dispute in O.S.No.211 of 2005 in respect of which Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the Advocate Commissioner filed his report.

10. The plaintiff herein suppressed the fact that a Commissioner was already appointed in an earlier suit apparently for the reason that the report is not favourable to him though the Commissioner was appointed in the earlier suit, in view of the fa