Achukatla Shaik Shavali v. Padakandla Anand,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5007 of 2016 ORDER:

The petitioner is the plaintiff. The petitioner challenges order in I.A.No.918 of 2012 filed by him for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to localize the plaint schedule property. The trial court through the order impugned in the revision has found that the appointment of Advocate Commissioner appears to be to gather evidence in support of plaintiff's case.

I have perused the affidavit, the counter affidavit filed by contesting respondents and also the order impugned in the revision. Prima facie, I do not see any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. The plaintiff can always prove the boundaries and the actual and physical possession as permitted by law.

With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________ S.V.BHATT, J Date:21-10-2016 Prv

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5007 of 2016 Dated 21-10-2016 Prv