ORDER:

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the plaintiff is directed against the order, dated 23.04.2019, of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, Guntur District, passed in IA.No.567 of 2018 in OS.No.779 of 2016 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC praying to re-entrust the warrant to the Advocate Commissioner to execute the warrant in the presence of both counsels and to answer the work memos filed by the respective parties.

2. Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri Sasanka Mohan.G, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the advocate commissioner, on 08.01.2018, in the present suit, issued notice to the learned counsel for the plaintiff stating that he is going to execute the warrant on 27.01.2018, and in reply to the said notice, learned counsel for the plaintiff intimated that he is going to Rameswaram and requesting to postpone execution of the warrant. However, the advocate Commissioner had executed the warrant and filed his report. Due to old age ailments, the plaintiff was bedridden and could not verify whether the commissioner visited the schedule property or not. The plaintiff filed detailed objections to the report of the advocate commissioner. The plaintiff was advised to file the present petition seeking re-entrustment of the warrant to the Commissioner.

Hence, the present petition was filed.

4. The respondents/defendants filed counter denying the petition averments and contending that the advocate commissioner executed the warrant after issuing notice to both the counsels that he is going to execute the warrant on 27.01.2018. The plaint schedule property is far away from the court and appointment of Mandal Surveyor is also required. The plaintiff intentionally avoided to participate in the proceedings. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The trial Court dismissed the petition as the petitioner failed to establish the unacceptability of the report of the advocate commissioner and to substantiate the objections on the report of the commissioner.

6. Hence, this revision petition by the petitioner/plaintiff contending that the trial Court committed grave error in passing the order impugned and the reasoning given in support of its conclusions are perverse and contrary to the facts and that therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable.

7. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that he is an old person of nearly 90 years of age and in spite of the admitted fact that his counsel informed the commissioner about his inability to attend for execution of the warrant, the commissioner proceeded for execution of the warrant without considering the relevant documents of both parties. Thus, the grievance of the revision petitioner is two-fold; firstly, necessary documents have not been considered, and, secondly, proper opportunity was not given for presence of the counsel for the revision petitioner.

8. The fact that the petitioner is very advanced in age is not in dispute. The commissioner himself recorded in his report that the counsel for the revision petitioner has intimated about his inability to attend for execution of the warrant on that particular date as he was going to Rameshwaram. Of course, the commissioner requested to depute a junior counsel or the plaintiff to be present over there. Neither of them can effectively take up the matter.

9. The revision petitioner filed objections to the commissioner’s report. Without going into the details of the objections, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that they can be considered at the relevant time. Even though this petition is not separately filed, based on the objections in the application filed for appointment of the commissioner itself, the warrant can be re-entrusted, in case, the objections are found to be correct and fresh inspection or survey is required. However, the revis