ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 04.10.2012 in IA No.457 of 2012 in OS No.3653 of 2010 on the file of the learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. This application in IA No.457 of 2012 has filed by the petitioners/defendants against the respondents/plaintiffs under Order26, Rule-9 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, that application was allowed. Smt. T. Shailaja Rao is appointed to note down the physical features of the petition schedule property and boundaries along with the help of Surveyor and the Advocate Commissioner was directed to file a report along with photographs on or before 29.10.2012. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondents/plaintiffs filed this civil revision petition on the following grounds :

(i) The Court below ought to have seen that the Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect the evidence;

(ii) The Court below ought to have seen that the Land Grabbing Case filed against the petitioners in LGC No.43 of 1997 before the Special Court was dismissed holding that the Government does not have title to the schedule property, which in fact confirmed the earlier round of LGC No.58 of 1990 where even earlier the Government claimed the schedule property belonging to the Government, but has lost LGC No.58 of 1990;

(iii) The Court below ought to have seen that on the application of Mandal Revenue Officer, the Special Court during the pendency of LGC directed the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records to file a detailed report, which was taken on file in LGC, the Director was duly cross-examined and considered by the Special Court at the time of passing orders in LGC No.43 of 1997;

(iv) The Court below ought to have seen that a private dispute between the petitioners and original pattadars on contest was decided in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs in OS No.484 of 1994 on the file of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which shows that the schedule property is a private property and not a government land;

(v) The scope of the suit is a suit for injunction simplicitor and title in the earlier round of litigation and injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs and the suit is coming for defendants’ evidence. At this stage, appointment of Advocate Commissioner amounts to abuse of process of law.

3. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs. Despite granting ample opportunity, there was no representation on behalf of the respondents/State Government. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration remained absent and there is no representation on his behalf. Perused the material placed on record.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the Original Suit No.3653 of 2010.

5. The defendants in the original suit have filed IA No.457 of 2012 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of suit schedule property – land admeasuring 2000 square yards in Survey No.223 corresponding to old Survey No.182, out of total extent of Ac.2.10 guntas situated at Saidabad Village and Mandal, Hyderabad Revenue District with precise boundaries as mentioned in the schedule of property.

6. The original suit is filed for injunction simplicitor alleging that originally the father of plaintiff No.1 and grandfather of plaintiffs 2 to 10, late Begari Babaiah has purchased the suit land from the son of original pattadar, Singireddy Venkata Swamy and after purchase, his name was recorded in all the revenue records in pattadar column. Thereafter, the defendants have tried to interfere and dispossess the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs 2 to 10. At that stage, B. Yettaiah, husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintif