Judgment : This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 14.02.2011 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally at Miyapur, in I.A.No.1252 of 2009 in O.S.No.1338 of 2008, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the petition filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners herein to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of petition schedule property along with respondent No.1’s property in accordance with the sanction plan. Heard. After due notice, learned counsel for the first respondent filed the counter affidavit and also placed reliance on some documents which indicate that the minor violations in the disputed property are regularized by the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the regularization proceedings have been issued during pendency of the suits, they are not applicable. He further submitted that the appointment of Advocate Commissioner is very much necessary to ascertain the deviations. This Court is of the view that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is the prerogative of the trial Court. If the trial Court is not able to decide the issue on the basis of the material available on record and if it feels that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is necessary for arriving at the just decision of the case, it is always at liberty to do so. Admittedly, the suit is filed in the year 2006 and the regularization proceedings are issued in the year 2010. In these circumstances and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order under revision is hereby set aside and the counsel on either side are permitted to raise all their respective pleas before the trial Court, and thereupon, the trial Court shall once again adjudicate I.A.No.1252 of 2009 in O.S.No.1338 of 2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.