ORDER : Kunuru Lakshman, J. 1. Heard Smt. R. Madhavi Latha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 19.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.273 of 2021 in I.A.No.7 of 2020 in O.S.No.18 of 2020 by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Karimnagar. 3. Respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit vide O.S.No.18 of 2020 for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants and their men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. She has also filed I.A.No.7 of 2020 in the said suit seeking ad-interim injunction. During pendency of the said suit and in the said I.A. No.7 of 2020, respondent/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.273 of 2021 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to measure and fix boundaries to the lands in Sy.Nos.124 and 125 situated at Vegurupalli Village, Manakondur Mandal, Karimnagar District, and also to ascertain the suit land and its survey number through Mandal Surveyor, contending as follows:- i. The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property i.e. agricultural land in Sy.No.124/AB(new), corresponding to its old No.124/A, Ac.0.02guntas in Sy.No.125/E which are adjoining to each other consisting of one compact block, totally measuring Ac.0.27guntas, situated at Vegurupalli Village of Manakondur Mandal, Karimnagar District (for short, 'the subject property'). ii. She has purchased the subject property along with other lands from Bandari Mallaiah and Bandari Nirmala through registered sale deed bearing document No.104/2017, mutation was effected and latest pattadar passbooks were also issued in her favour. iii. Prior to purchasing the said lands, her vendors acquired the said lands through registered gift settlement deeds bearing document Nos.5161 of 2005 and 66 of 2006 respectively from its original pattadars. iv. The defendants in the written statement claimed that their forefathers were cultivating the land admeasuring Ac.0.16guntas attached to land in Sy.No.125/C of Vegurupalli Village, part and parcel of suit land which is bounded by stone poles, but no document is filed in support of the same. v. They further claimed that the said dispute will be solved if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed to fix the boundaries of Sy.Nos.124 and 125 of Vegurupalli. vi. In fact, suit schedule property is located in Sy.No.124 of Vegurupalli Village. v. They further claimed that the said dispute will be solved if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed to fix the boundaries of Sy.Nos.124 and 125 of Vegurupalli. vi. In fact, suit schedule property is located in Sy.No.124 of Vegurupalli Village. In the suit filed by her husband and his brother vide O.S.No.358 of 2013 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, Advocate Commissioner was appointed who surveyed the land and fixed boundaries to Sy.No.124 and laid stone pillar with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor and Police, Manakondur as the respondents/ defendants obstructed the Advocate Commissioner's work and the said Advocate Commissioner also submitted report to the said effect. vii. After dismissal of the said suit, plaintiff has filed the present suit narrating the said facts and obtained ex parte interim order, the same is in force. viii. During subsistence of the said interim injunction, defendants illegally trespassed into her land and removed the boundary stone pillars erected by the Mandal Surveyor on the instructions of the Advocate-Commissioner. The plaintiff lodged a complaint with Police, who in turn, registered a case in Cr.No.226 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. ix. It is essential to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to survey the land in Sy.Nos.124 and 125 of Vegurupalli Village, fix boundaries to both the survey numbers to resolve the issue. x. No prejudice will be caused to the defendants if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed. 4. The said application was opposed by the defendants contending that in the earlier suit in O.S.No.358 of 2013 filed by the plaintiff's husband and his brother against them for perpetual injunction, the plaintiffs sought for appointment of Advocate- Commissioner. Trial Court appointed Advocate-Commissioner who in turn executed the warrant and surveyed the land with the help of Mandal Surveyor. The said fact was also mentioned in paragraph No.13 of the judgment in O.S.No.391 of 2012, dated 02.12.2019 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar and the said suit was dismissed. 5. Husband of the plaintiff and his brother has filed a suit O.S.No.358 of 2013 against the defendants seeking permanent injunction. In the said suit, they sought to appoint Advocate- Commissioner to conduct survey and the same was allowed. The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.12.2019. 5. Husband of the plaintiff and his brother has filed a suit O.S.No.358 of 2013 against the defendants seeking permanent injunction. In the said suit, they sought to appoint Advocate- Commissioner to conduct survey and the same was allowed. The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.12.2019. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed the present suit vide O.S.No.18 of 2020 and in the present suit, she sought appointment of Advocate- Commissioner. Therefore, the appointment of second Advocate- Commissioner is impermissible. 6. Vide impugned order dated 19.03.2024, the trial court allowed the said application and appointed Advocate- Commissioner to measure and fix boundaries to the land in Sy.Nos.124 and 125 and also to find out the disputed/suit land exists through Mandal Surveyor. 7. The petitioners filed the present revision challenging the impugned order contending that appointment of second Advocate-Commissioner to conduct survey of the land is impermissible. The trial court without considering the contents of the plaint, affidavit, petition in I.A.No.273 of 2021 and counter filed by the defendants, allowed the said I.A.No.273 of 2021 and appointed Advocate-Commissioner erroneously. 8. Whereas, learned counsel for the 1st respondent would contend that on consideration of entire material, put a quietus to the issue, learned trial Court allowed the said application and appointed Advocate-Commissioner. There is no error in it. 9. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the husband of the plaintiff and his brother filed a suit vide O.S.No.391 of 2012 against the petitioners herein seeking perpetual injunction. The schedule property in the said suit is land admeasuring Ac.0.28guntas in Sy.No.91/C, Ac.4-18guntas in Sy.No.124/C, Ac.0.25guntas in Sy.No.124/D, Ac.0.25guntas in Sy.No.124/E in total admeasuring Ac.6.16guntass situated in Vegurupalli Village, Malakondur Mandal, Karinmnagar District. In paragraph No.13 of the said judgment, there is specific reference to the deposition of P.W.4 about the appointment of Advocate-Commissioner and that on 07.05.2019, Advocate-Commissioner along with Mandal Surveyor, has surveyed the land and at that time, the defendant and his family members obstructed the Mandal Surveyor and then the Advocate Commissioner conducted survey with the assistance of Police, Manakondur and fixed stone pillars and even after survey, the defendants are harassing the plaintiff from cultivating the land. 10. The said suit was dismissed on 02.12.2019. No appeal was preferred. The said judgment and decree attained finality. Perusal of the said judgment and decree would reveal that the Advocate Commissioner report was not marked. 10. The said suit was dismissed on 02.12.2019. No appeal was preferred. The said judgment and decree attained finality. Perusal of the said judgment and decree would reveal that the Advocate Commissioner report was not marked. Neither Advocate-Commissioner nor the Surveyor was examined. Except the aforesaid statement of P.W.4, there is no evidence either oral or documentary in the said suit. Moreover, in the said suit, suit schedule property is in Sy.No.91/C, 124/C, 124/D, 124/E of Vegurupalli Village. The property in the present suit is in Sy.No.124/A, 124/AB and 125/E of Vegurupalli Village. The plaintiff is claiming that she has purchased the subject property from her vendor under a registered sale deed bearing document No.104/17. The cause of action in the said suit as well as suit schedule property is different from that of the present suit. 11. It is also relevant to note that the 1st petitioner herein filed O.S.No.358 of 2013 against the husband of plaintiff and his brother for perpetual injunction. According to the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, he has also sought for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to conduct survey of the suit schedule property therein and trail Court allowed the said application appointing Advocate-Commissioner. Thereafter, 1st petitioner herein withdrew the said suit and therefore, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.12.2019. 12. Thus, the aforesaid facts would reveal that the Advocate- Commissioner did not execute the warrant. However, the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn. 13. In the present case, it is the specific contention of the respondent/plaintiff that after execution of warrant by the Advocate Commissioner in O.S.No.358 of 2013, after conducting survey, fixing boundaries to the land in Sy.No.124 of Vegurupalli Village, laying of stone pillar by the Mandal Surveyor with the help of Police, Manakondur Mandal, the petitioner herein/defendants disturbed the same. The Commissioner submitted report to the said effect.. Thereafter, the defendants have illegally trespassed into the land of the plaintiff, removed boundary stone pillars erected by the Mandal Surveyor. Therefore, she has lodged a complaint with police who in turn registered the same as Cr.No.226 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 of IPC Therefore, the issue of appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to conduct survey of the land in Sy.Nos.124 and 125 of Vegurupalli Village and fix boundaries to both the survey numbers was answered accordingly. 14. 14. The only objection of the defendants to I.A.No.273 of 2021 is that in the earlier suit vide O.S.No.391 of 2012 filed by the husband of the plaintiff and his brother, Advocate-Commissioner was appointed. He has surveyed the land and demarcated the suit schedule property in the said suit with the help of the Mandal Surveyor. Therefore, appointment of second Advocate-Commissioner is impermissible. 15. As discussed supra, the suit schedule property in O.S.No.391 of 2012 is different from that of the present suit. 16. As discussed supra, the Advocate-Commissioner's report was not part of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.391 of 2012. Neither the Advocate Commissioner nor Mandal Surveyor were examined in the said suit. Therefore, the same was not brought on record. Except, the mention of deposition of P.W.4 in paragraph No.13 of the judgment in O.S.No.391 of 2012, nothing more was mentioned to the said effect. It will not be useful to the learned trial Court to decide the present suit O.S.No.18 of 2020. 17. It is the settled law that whenever there arises dispute with regard to identification of property and to note down the physical features, the trial Court can get report of an Advocate-Commissioner by appointing an Advocate-Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC and provides an opportunity to the parties to cross-examine the Advocate - Commissioner and also the Mandal Surveyor and also to argue on the validity of the Advocate-Commissioner's report. Therefore, on consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order dated 19.03.2024 in I.A.No.273 of 2021 in I.A.No. 7 of 2020 in O.S.No.18 of 2020, learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar has appointed an Advocate Commissioner. I.A.No.7 of 2020 learned trial Court granted ex parte interim injunction and the same is subsisting and the said Interlocutory Application is pending. There is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The petitioners herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 18. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed. Petition Dismissed