ORDER:

Plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 06.09.2022 in I.A.No.725 of 2021 in O.S.No.242 of

2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

2. Revision petitioner/Plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.242 of 2012 against the respondents/defendants to eject them from the plaint schedule property and to deliver vacant possession of the same. The schedule property was described in the plaint as Zeriothi Dry land of an extent of Ac.0-34 cents in Sy.No.79/3 of Malliveedu Panchayat and Revenue, L.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

3. In the plaint, plaintiff contended inter alia that he purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 23.05.2011 from the defendants 7 and 8; that 7th defendant suppressed the fact and alienated the property; that the schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of defendants 1 to 6; that plaintiff came to know about the same, got issued legal notice to the defendants 1 to 4 to vacate the schedule property within 30 days; that even after receipt of the notice, defendants 2 to 4 did not vacate the schedule property and as such, plaintiff filed the suit for the relief stated supra.

4. 1st defendant filed written statement and contended inter alia that originally one Kolli Satyanarayana, son of Yerrayya @ Yerri Naidu purchased the schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 17.06.1968 from Kolli Gangunaidu and his minor sons; that by the date of purchase from the said Kolli Satyanarayana, a rice mill in the name and style of “Sri Satyanarayana Rice & Flour Mill” is existing in the schedule premises; that the said Rice & Flour Mill was established in the schedule premises in the year 1941-42 and is being run by the persons from time to time; that after getting necessary sanctions and approval the mill was established; that the said Kolli Satyanarayana settled the property in favour of 1st defendant by way of a registered sale deed dated 30.03.1970 and since then the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the property; that the defendant also constructed and established a Saw Mill in the name of “Satyanarayana Saw Mill” after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities and also constructed RCC slabbed residential house; that defendants 7 and 8 are no way related to Pediredla Suryakantham and they are having no right, title and interest over the schedule property to alienate the same to the plaintiff.

5. Pending the suit, I.A.No.725 of 2021 is filed by the defendants 1 to 4 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to observe the physical features of the plaint schedule property and the constructions thereon and file report.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter alia that as per Ex.A-1 sale deed, the plaint schedule property is an agricultural dry land. Whereas, the case of the 1st defendant is that she got the plaint schedule property with Rice and Flour Mill under settlement deed dated 20.03.1970 and thereafter she constructed the Saw Mill and residential house in the plaint schedule property. To appreciate the evidence adduced on both sides and in order to decide the exact nature of the plaint schedule property, it is necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the relief stated supra.

7. 1st respondent/plaintiff filed counter and opposed the application.

8. By order dated 06.09.2022 the trial Court allowed I.A.No.725 of 2021 and Smt.E.Aruna Kumari, Advocate is appointed as Commissioner to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed.

9. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the application was filed at belated stage to collect the evidence. The suit is filed for ejectment and the plaintiff has to establish title over the plaint schedule property. In such an event, Advocate Commissioner’s appointment is nothing