This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.18-08-2011 in I.A.No.173 of 2008 in O.S.No.448 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judges Court, Srikakulam.

2. The petitioners are defendants in the suit. The suit was filed by the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the ‘ABCD’ marked front yard vacant site.

3. Pending suit, I.A.No.173 of 2008 was filed by the respondent under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC praying for appointment of an advocate commissioner to take measurements of the property mentioned in the registered sale deed dt.28-02-1963 under which he has purchased the property and to find out whether the ‘ABCD’ plan marked vacant site is part and parcel of the property mentioned in the said registered sale deed or not with the help of a qualified surveyor.

4. The petitioners opposed the said I.A. They contended that at their instance I.A.No.968 of 2004 was filed for local inspection; that it was allowed and an advocate commissioner was appointed who executed the warrant and filed the report. It was also contended that the respondent had not filed any objection at that time and now he has filed present petition to appoint an advocate commissioner again to harass the petitioners.

5. By order dt.18-08-2011, the Court below allowed I.A.No.173 of 2008 holding that the real question in controversy is with regard to localization of the ‘ABCD’ marked site and that it is necessary to localize it with reference to the sale deed of the respondent and other title deeds, if any, of both the parties; it also rejected the objection of the petitioners that the present petition is not maintainable because of an earlier order appointing advocate commissioner to note down the physical features.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition is filed.

7. Heard Sri K.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the purpose for which the I.A. was filed by the respondent was to collect evidence; that the earlier advocate commissioner was appointed to note down physical features of the property and therefore another advocate commissioner cannot be appointed to localize the ‘ABCD’ site which is subject matter of the dispute between the parties. He also relied upon the decision in Dammalapati Satyanarayana and Others Vs. Datla Venkata Ramabhadra Raju @ D.V.R.Raju and another (2006 (4) ALD 675) and Sanjay and Others Vs. Sahebrao and Others (2001 (4) CCC 416 (Bom.).

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any error warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that valid reasons have been given by the Court below for allowing I.A.No.173 of 2008.

10. I have noted the contentions of the respective parties.

11. In the present case, the dispute between the parties is whether the ‘ABCD’ marked vacant site shown in the plaint plan by the respondent is part of the property which belongs to the respondent which had been purchased by his father and uncle under registered sale deed dt.28-02-1963. In the written statement, it is contended by the petitioners that respondent’s vendor nor respondent have no clear title, that the vendors under the above sale deed fixed the boundaries on assumption and there is no basis for the said measurements. It is also contended in the written statement that the boundaries and measurements given by the respondent are false and incorrect and the plaint plan itself was not valid in the eye of law.

12. It is not disputed that the respondent and the petitioners are neighbours and the house of the petitioners is to the north of the property of the respondent. When the parties are neighbours and there