P. S. NARAYANA,J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri B. Sree Rama Krishna, learned Advocate-Commissioner and Sri K. V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel representing the petitioners, ( 2 ) THE present application is filed by the learned Advocate-Commissioner praying for enhancement of his fee from Rs. 5,000/- to rs. 25,000/- and consequently direct the petitioners to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the Advocate-Commissioner within such period as may be determined by this Court in the interest of justice, and pass such other suitable orders. ( 3 ) IT is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the learned Advocate-Commissioner was appointed by this Court, Vacation bench, on 17. 1. 2006 for taking inventory of stock-in-trade along with books of accounts etc. , of the 1st respondent-firm. It is further stated that the learned Commissioner had taken the Inventory of stock-in-trade along with the accounts etc. , by staying at Vijayawada for 3 days during sankranti Vacation i. e. , 20th, 21st and 22nd of Januaiy, 2006. Accordingly, the stock-in-trade taken on inventory was Rs. 4,42,40,738/- and the specimen copies taken on inventory was Rs. 78,28,200/ -. It is stated that these details are available from page Nos. 76 to 104 as enclosed to the report of the Commissioner. ( 4 ) SEVERAL other factual details had been narrated and the main grievance of the learned Advocate-Commissioner is that inasmuch as the learned Commissioner had transacted heavy work, the remuneration fixed by this Court at Rs. 5,000/- may not be sufficient and hence prays for enhanced remuneration. ( 5 ) INITIALLY Sri Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel representing the petitioners had taken a stand that he had no instructions In the matter and hence this Court ordered notice to the petitioners. Subsequent thereto, at present Sri Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel representing the petitioners, would maintain that the learned Commissioner/ without appreciating the scope of warrant, had over-burdened himself. Even otherwise, inasmuch as this Court passed an order on Randt matter and inasmuch as the matter was transferred to the Court of I Additional Senior civil Judge, Vijayawada, after reopening of the Courts, it may not be just and proper for this Court to pass any order in this regard. Even otherwise, inasmuch as this Court passed an order on Randt matter and inasmuch as the matter was transferred to the Court of I Additional Senior civil Judge, Vijayawada, after reopening of the Courts, it may not be just and proper for this Court to pass any order in this regard. ( 6 ) SECTION 33 of A. P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 deal with High Court to receive suits and appeals when no Vacation Civil Judge is appointed, reads as hereunder:"high Court to receive suits and appeals when no vacation Civil Judge is appointed:- When District Court or (the Court of Senior Civil Judge) or (the Court of Junior civil Judge) to which a suit, an appeal or other proceeding lies is adjourned under Section 31 and when no Vacation civil Judge is appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 32, the High Court shall have the power to receive such suits, appeals and other proceedings". ( 7 ) THIS is a peculiar case where this Court appointed Advocate-Commissioner during vacation in an Randt matter and it appears the learned Advocate-Commissioner had executed the warrant. This Court is not inclined to express any further opinion relating to the merits and demerits of the matter. However, suffice it to say that merely because the matter was settled by the parties and the suit was withdrawn, which was said to be pending on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, vijayawada, it cannot be said that this Court, which passed the order, cannot make any order whatsoever. However, taking the over all facts and circumstances into consideration and also in the light of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, this court is of the considered opinion that the learned Advocate-Commissioner be given liberty to move appropriate application before the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, and despite the fact that the suit was withdrawn for the limited purpose of deciding additional remuneration, the learned Judge to look into all the facts and circumstances and to pass appropriate orders in this regard. Except making this observation and giving liberty to the learned Advocate-Commissioner, nothing else can be done at this stage by this Court. The RTAMP is accordingly disposed of. No costs.