ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition is filed to set aside the order dated 08.12.2015 passed in I.A. No. 1045 of 2015 in O.S. No. 16 of 2009 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Warangal, wherein and whereby, the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 and 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) by the revision petitioners was dismissed.

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

3. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5-Plaintiffs filed suit in O.S. No. 16 of 2009 before the I Additional District Judge, Warangal for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the defendants i.e. respondents 1 and 2 and the revision petitioners herein. The trial in the suit was also completed and the matter is posted for arguments. While so, the revision petitioners filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 and 10 read with Section 151 of CPC to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features and for localization of the schedule property with boundaries, since they are disputing the description of the boundaries in their written statement.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-defendant No. 2 resisted the same by filing a suitable counter.

5. On a consideration of the material on record, the trial Court has dismissed the said application, vide order dated 08.12.2015, stating that the suit is coming-up for arguments and the photographs of the suit schedule property are available in the record and in the counter filed by respondent No. 2-defendant No. 2 stated that there is no dispute with regard to the boundaries. As such, there is no necessity for noting down the physical features of the suit schedule property. Challenging the said order, the present revision is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application. As the petitioners have disputed the boundaries of the suit schedule property, they filed an application to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property in order to localize the property with boundaries. He also submits that no prejudice would cause to the case respondents herein, if the said application is allowed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5, while supporting the impugned order, submits that there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the trial Court while dismissing the present application. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the present revision.

8. On perusal of the record would disclose that the suit is coming-up for arguments, as both the parties have adduced evidence.

9. The present application is filed to appoint an advocate commissioner for the purpose of noting down the physical features of the schedule property. The petitioners herein have disputed the boundaries in their written statement. However, in the counter filed by respondent No. 2-defendant No. 2, it is stated that the physical features of the property are readily available with the photographs and denied the boundaries, as mentioned by the revision petitioners.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contentions has placed reliance of the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Vishnudas Manga Bhavani and another vs. Vooturi Bhaskar and others , 1993 (2) ALT 589 , wherein it is held at Para-5 and 6, which reads thus:

“5. The learned Subordinate Judge was right in observing that “the stage of the case” was “also to be taken into consideration for appointing the Commissioner to ma