ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order dated 08.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.210 of 2022 in O.S.No.26 of 2015 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad.

2. Petitioner herein is petitioner No.3 - plaintiff No.3; respondent Nos. 3 to 9 herein are the other petitioners-plaintiffs and respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the respondents in I.A.No.210 of 2022.

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from legal infirmities and not in accordance with the procedure. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that appointment of Advocate Commissioner is just and necessary for the fair adjudication of the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and failed to see that the respondent No.2-defendant No.2 is claiming his land on the northern side of the suit property but not willing for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit land on technical grounds for collecting evidence.

3.2 The learned trial Court ought to have seen that the petition filed by the petitioner herein is neither for recovery of possession nor for deciding the factum of possession but for identification of boundaries and the extent of land in illegal possession of defendant No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) is in Sy.No.236/A.

3.3 The learned trial Court ought to have seen that the factum of illegal possession of Ac.1.00 cents of petitioner’s land is not denied but the quantum of possession of suit schedule land is exceeded by the respondent No.2-defendant No.2 to an extent Ac.1-60 cents without looking into the boundaries of the suit schedule property. Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied on the decisions in case of (i) Haryana Waqf Board v. Shanti Sarup and others , 2008 (8) SCC 671 and (ii) Bandaru Mutyalu and another v. Palli Appalaraju , 2013 (6) ALT 26 .

4. Learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, no interference is call for. Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied on the decision in the case of Arvind Kumar Agarwal v. Legend Estates (P) Limited, Kokapet Village, Ranga Reddy District, 2015 (2) ALT 484 (S.B.)

5. Petitioner herein has sworn the affidavit in I.A.No.210 of 2022, wherein he stated that respondent No.2 herein has filed his written statement in the suit and claiming that he is in possession of Ac.1.60 cents out of Sy.No.236/A and he is not in possession of suit land. Respondent No.2 has purchased Ac.1.60 cents of land from defendant No.1 (Respondent No.1 herein), which she has purchased from his father and the same is situated on the North of the suit land and prayed to appoint Advocate Commissioner assisted by the technical man to find out whether defendant No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) is in possession of the Ac.2.60 cents of land in Sy.No.236/A inclusive of suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents situated at Jankapur village.

6. Respondents have resisted the said application by filing counter and the learned trial Court has dismissed the same which is impugned in the Civil Revision Petition.

7. Power of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors a