ORDER: 1. Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his application in I.A.No.127 of 2009 in O.S.No.301 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, for appointment of an advocate Commissioner, by the order dated 6-10-2009. The request of the revision petitioner is to have such commissioner to conduct a survey and demarcate Sy.Nos.130, 135, 136 and 137 of Ameenpur village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District with the assistance of a named retired Inspector of Survey and Land Records. The request was resisted by the contesting defendants and in the impugned order, the trial Court referred to appointing an advocate Commissioner earlier in I.A.No.641 of 2007 to inspect the suit land and to note down the physical features of the suit land and also to inspect the lands which are subject of purchase by defendants 4 to 7 and also to demarcate the survey numbers and the properties of the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 with the assistance of the concerned Mandal Surveyor/Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. The trial Court observed that the said Commissioner complied with the directions of the Court and filed his report on which the revision petitioner also filed his objections. The trial Court also referred to the orders of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.3394 of 2008 in W.P.No.2640 of 2008 dated 02-03-2009. As the application was for appointment of a second advocate Commissioner, the trial Court rejected the request while leaving it open to the revision petitioner to raise their objections including about not following the provisions of the Survey and Boundaries Act along with their objections already raised regarding the Commissioner’s report filed by the first Advocate Commissioner. 3. The revision petitioner seeks to contend herein that the first Advocate Commissioner took into account the modified sketch dated 15-04-2004, which was suspended by the orders of the High Court in W.P.No.2640 of 2008, and therefore, the appointment of an advocate Commissioner for making a survey dehors the sketch dated 15-04-2004 is necessary in the interests of justice. 4. 3. The revision petitioner seeks to contend herein that the first Advocate Commissioner took into account the modified sketch dated 15-04-2004, which was suspended by the orders of the High Court in W.P.No.2640 of 2008, and therefore, the appointment of an advocate Commissioner for making a survey dehors the sketch dated 15-04-2004 is necessary in the interests of justice. 4. Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on a decision reported in M. Ramesh Babu v. M. Sreedhar 2009 (4) ALT 780 (DB) to contend that in principle scrapping of report of the first Commissioner is not necessary before entertaining the request for a second commissioner. But that decision was relating to the opinion of an expert which was considered by the Division Bench to be not possibly gospel truth and subject to scrutiny with reference to the opinion of another expert, who may point out errors not noticed by the first expert or the Court. The ratio decidendi of the decision of the Division Bench may not appropriately fit in the case of a commissioner for a local inspection almost for identical purposes being requested again, while the first Commissioner’s report was not dissented by the Court. In fact, a decision reported in Koduru Sesha Reddy v. Gottigundala Venkata Rami Reddy and others 2006(1) ALD 372 has been fairly brought to notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, which referred to there being several judgments of this Court to the effect that before appointment of a second advocate Commissioner, the Court should record its dissatisfaction about the report submitted by the first Commissioner, the object being to avoid conflicting reports before the court. 5. The report of the first Commissioner, who complied with similar directions of the Court as now sought for again by the revision petitioner, cannot become irrelevant solely due to the suspension of the sketch dated 15-04-2004 by this Court in a writ petition and if due to such suspension of the sketch, any fresh inspection of the disputed properties by the advocate commissioner becomes necessary, it is always open to the revision petitioner to approach the trial Court with a request to direct the first advocate Commissioner himself to make a local inspection again de hors the sketch in question. If the revision petitioner otherwise seeks to discredit the first advocate Commissioner’s report in total and have a second advocate commissioner for making a local inspection, then invariably he should persuade the trial Court to conclude about the unacceptability of the report of the first advocate Commissioner with reference to the objections raised by him against the said report or any other relevant considerations that he may bring to the notice of the trial Court. Till such a thing is done, the request for appointment of second advocate Commissioner will be opposed to the consistent view taken by this Court as is noted by this Court in Koduru Sesha Reddy v. Gottigundala Venkata Rami Reddy and others (2 supra). 6. Therefore, while dismissing the Civil Revision Petition without costs, the revision petitioner is given the liberty to approach the trial Court with a similar request, which shall be considered by the trial Court on merits in accordance with law in the event of the revision petitioner succeeding in having the report of the first advocate Commissioner rejected by the trial Court on the basis of the objections taken by him against such report or any other relevant considerations.