ORDER : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge at Kamareddy in IA.No.264 of 2023 in OS No.5 of 2016, dated 25.09.2023. 2. Petitioners are the respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are respondent Nos.3 and 4 in IA.No.264 of 2023 in OS No.5 of 2016. 3.1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed IA No.264 of 2023 under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to appoint Advocate Commissioner with a direction to get the land in survey Nos.28, 880 and 898 of Kamaraddy Village is surveyed and demarcated with the help of Government Surveyor and with authenticated survey records, to localise the entire accounted and unaccounted land of the petitioners (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) in the above said survey numbers and accounted land of petitioners to localise Acs.07-00 guntas of land already conveyed to respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs (petitioners herein) in the above said survey number under Exs.B4 to B6 and also to localise three distinct pieces of land covered by Ex.A5-Development Agreement, dated 19.03.2016 and also to localise suit schedule land claimed by respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs (petitioners herein) by preparing sketch and to file report. 3.2. GPA holder of respondent Nos.1 and 2-petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 by name G.Ramakrishna Reddy filed his affidavit and contended that the respondent Nos.1 and 2-petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement in the suit on 08.06.2018 and categorically pleaded that they are in effective possession and enjoyment as absolute owners over Acs.27-20.06 guntas of contiguous piece of land in survey Nos.28, 880 and 898 of Kamareddy Village and out of which Acs.13.02 guntas comprising Acs.02-06 guntas in survey No.28, Acs.05-24 guntas in survey 880, and Acs.05-12 guntas in survey No.898 was accounted in their names in the revenue records and the balance land is yet to be accounted though they are in effective possession and enjoyment of the entire land to an extent of Acs.27-20.06 guntas. Petitioners-respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs are aware of the said fact and entered into agreement of sale with them on 22.06.2013 (Ex.B1) to purchase entire Acs.13-02 guntas. Petitioners-respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs are aware of the said fact and entered into agreement of sale with them on 22.06.2013 (Ex.B1) to purchase entire Acs.13-02 guntas. They have conveyed Acs.07-00 guntas of land in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and their associates out of accounted extent and the balance Acs.06-02 guntas in the above said survey numbers are located at three different distinct places i.e., Acs.00-06 guntas in survey No.28, Ac.0-24 guntas in survey Nos.880, and Acs.05-12 guntas in survey No.898 and survey was conducted in pursuance of Ex.B3 notice dated 15.12.2015, after the survey and demarcation, respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs (petitioners herein) have withdrawn from the suit agreement and subsequently filed a false suit. 3.3. Petitioner No.1-respondent No.1-plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW.1 and co-purchaser under Ex.B1-Agreement of Sale, dated 22.06.2013 is examined as PW.2 and they admitted that Acs.06-02 guntas claimed by the plaintiff's (petitioners herein) is the same land what is shown in Ex.A5-Development Agreement, dated 19.03.2016. Acs.06-02 guntas is located at three different locations away from each survey number which is shown in yellow colour in Ex.B7-sketch and prayed to appoint Advocate Commissioner. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs (petitioners herein) filed counter and contended that they have led evidence and the defendant evidence is in process, while DW.1 entered into the witness box and was cross-examined at length the case is posted for further evidence of the defendant, at that time, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is filed. In a suit for specific performance there is a limited scope to be adjudicated, it has to be within the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale. DW.1 has filed unauthenticated plan showing as if the agreed property to be sold to the plaintiffs is not at one place but at different places. The scope of Advocate Commissioner is not to assist any party to collect evidence. Respondent Nos.1 and 2- petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 have agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff's (petitioners herein) with definite boundary that a part Development Agreement was executed subsequent to the suit agreement giving the same boundaries and prayed to dismiss the same. 5. The scope of Advocate Commissioner is not to assist any party to collect evidence. Respondent Nos.1 and 2- petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 have agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff's (petitioners herein) with definite boundary that a part Development Agreement was executed subsequent to the suit agreement giving the same boundaries and prayed to dismiss the same. 5. The learned trial Court after going through the material on record has allowed IA.No.264 of 2023 vide order dated 25.09.2023 and appointed Sri P. Srinivas Reddy Advocate, Kamareddy to identify the exact location of the property covered in survey Nos.28/U, 880/U and 898 of Kamareddy town and also find out whether the above three survey numbers are single contiguous (adjoining) piece of land or not with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor, Tahsildar Office, Kamareddy with revenue records and the Commissioner fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2-petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts of the case in proper prospective and reached to an erroneous conclusion and allowed the application. The learned trial Court failed to see that appointment of Advocate Commissioner is filed in the suit at the time of further evidence of the defendants and also ignored the power of the Court under Section 151 of CPC. The learned Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the question with respect to the boundaries of three survey numbers i.e., 28, 880 and 898 has never been raised before entering into the agreement of sale and also failed to recognise the scope of the appointment of Advocate Commissioner and prayed to set aside the order. 7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-petitioners- defendant Nos.1 and 2 contended that PW.1 and PW.2 have admitted that Acs.06-02 guntas which is claimed by them is the same land what is shown in Ex.A5-Development Agreement, dated 19.03.2016. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly allowed the application, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the CRP. 8. Heard counsel on record, perused the material. 9. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court? 10. 8. Heard counsel on record, perused the material. 9. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court? 10. Petitioners-respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs have filed suit for specific performance of contract against respondents-defendant Nos.1 to 4 contending that defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) owned Acs.13-00 guntas and odd in survey No.28/part, 880/part and 898, they agreed to sell part of it and sold Acs.07-00 guntas through registered sale deed in the name of M/s. Sri Sai Shiva Developers of which the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are partners apart from others and for the remaining extent of land i.e., Acs.06-02 guntas (Acs.0-06 guntas in survey No.28/part, 24 guntas in survey No.880 and Acs.05-12 guntas in survey No.898) have entered into agreement of sale on 06.08.2014 and the total value is Rs.78 Lakhs per acre and they have paid Rs.10 Lakhs as part consideration. The relief claimed in the suit is to declare the Development Agreement, dated 19.03.2016 entered by defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) with defendant Nos.3 and 4 (respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein) as null, void and not binding and to direct the defendants (respondents herein) to execute registered sale deed in their favour in terms of sale agreement, dated 06.08.2014. 11. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed their written statement in the suit and contended that they have executed three registered sale deeds to an extent of Acs.07-00 guntas in the name of the nominees of the petitioners-plaintiffs. Petitioners- plaintiffs have obtained signatures of these defendants (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) on a fresh Agreement of Sale in the name of the plaintiffs (petitioners herein) representing that it pertains to balance Acs.06.02 guntas accounted land in Survey No.28/E to an extent of Ac.0.06 guntas; Survey No.880/U to an extent of Ac.0-24 guntas; Survey No.898 to an extent of Acs.05-12 guntas. The defendants (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) have subscribed their signatures on the Agreement of Sale dated 06.08.2014 in good faith. The defendants (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) have subscribed their signatures on the Agreement of Sale dated 06.08.2014 in good faith. It is further stated in the written statement that on the application of the defendants (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) Inspector of Survey Land Records deputed Assistant Director Land Records, Nizamabad and he has served notice dated 15.12.2015 fixing 9.30 A.M. on 21.12.2015 for survey and demarcation of the land of these defendants (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) in Survey Nos.28, 880 & 898 of Kamareddy. It is clear from the demarcation that entire unaccounted Acs.2.32 guntas in Survey No.28 belong to these defendants (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) which is abutting the Ramreddy Road on its East and rest of the unaccounted land forming part of Survey Nos.880 & 898 located in the West of it. The plaintiff (petitioner herein) was present during the said demarcation and was aware of the localization made by the Survey Authorities and has withdrawn from the sale transaction voluntarily foregoing advance amount paid by them and thereafter filed suit in OS.No.5 of 2016. 12. On perusal of the agreement of sale dated 06.08.2014 executed in favour of the petitioners by respondent Nos.1 and 2 which shows the total extent as Acs.06-02 guntas adjacent to each other and the schedule of the property with boundaries is as under: SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY 1) Land bearing Sy.No.28, extent of Acs.0-06 gts., 2) Land bearing Sy.No.880/ extent of Acs. 0-24 gts., 3) Land bearing Sy.No.898, extent of Acs. 5-12 gts., Which includes RCC Cum CT Roof House No.1-5-94, Grand total extent of Acs. 6-02 gts., The length of the said lands comes to 530.0 feets approximately towards Eastern Boundry i.e., facing to Ramareddy Road, situated at Kamareddy town, Nizamabad District, the said landed property located in one Boundary as cited below: North : Land of Vendors sold to M/s.Sri Sai Shiva Developers South : Land of Neighbours East : Ramareddy Road West : Vendors remaining land 13. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 have entered into Development Agreement on 19.03.2016 with respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect of Acs.06-02 guntas and the boundaries are as under: SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY - A All that part and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.28/? Respondent Nos.1 and 2-petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 have entered into Development Agreement on 19.03.2016 with respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect of Acs.06-02 guntas and the boundaries are as under: SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY - A All that part and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.28/? admeasuring Ac.0.06 guntas, bounded by :- NORTH: Land of M/s. SRI SAI SHIVA DEVELOPERS SOUTH :- Land of first party EAST :- Ramareddy Road WEST:- Land of M/s. SRI SAI SHIVA DEVELOPERS SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY - B All that part and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.880 admeasuring Ac.0.24 guntas, bounded by :- NORTH :- Land of First Party SOUTH :- Land of First Party EAST :- Land of M/s. SRI SAI SHIVA DEVELOPERS WEST :- Sy.No.880/Part SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY - C All that part and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.898 admeasuring Ac.5.12 guntas, bounded by :- NORTH: Land of first party SOUTH :- Residential houses EAST :- Ramareddy Road WEST:- Sy.No.894 and Sy.No.897 14. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has filed Ex.B7 sketch showing the location of sold land, unaccounted land and suit land in survey Nos.28, 880 and 898 of Kamareddy Village. 15. The learned trial Court observed in the order that PW.1 admitted in his cross-examination that the suit schedule property as shown in Ex.A1 are not single contiguous piece of land but it comprised three distinct pieces of land. The further observation of the learned trial Court is as under: b) Now the core question is whether the suit schedule property covered in survey No. 28/E, 880 and 898 are single contiguous piece of land or not? c) On careful perusal of the entire material on record, one thing very much appears that both the parties are seriously disputing about the actual and exact location of the suit schedule property covered in three Survey numbers, therefore, if the advocate commissioner is appointed for location and identification of the property covered in the above said suit survey numbers, undoubtedly, the truth will come out, whether the suit schedule property covered in the above said three survey numbers are contiguous piece of land or not. Moreover, the advocate commissioner report and plan would play vital role to determine the controversy between the parties. Moreover, the advocate commissioner report and plan would play vital role to determine the controversy between the parties. It is therefore, on proper adjudication of the matter and to remove controversy involved in the suit, this Court appoint an advocate commissioner to identify the exact location of the suit schedule property covered in the said three survey numbers i.e. 28/U, 880, 898 situated at Kamareddy town. If the advocate commissioner is appointed for location of the property covered in three survey numbers, there is no serous prejudice or injury would cause to the respondents/plaintiffs. 8. By considering all the aspects and taking into consideration, this Court inclined to consider the request of the petitioners. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 16. Ex.B3 is the notice issued by Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Nizamabad for demarcation of survey Nos.28, 880, 898 of Kamareddy. On perusal of the said document respondent No.1- petitioner No.1-defendant No.1 made an application in the month of August, 2015 for demarcation of the above said survey numbers. Survey date is fixed as 21.12.2015 and the notice is issued to all the stake holders including adjacent land owners. 17. It is apt to refer para No.5 of the affidavit (i.e., IA.No.264 of 2023) which reads as under: “I submit that the said factum was fully once again confirmed by the survey authority, when the surveyor has in fact with the help of authenticated survey records in the presence of Plaintiffs and their associates has conducted survey pursuant to Ex.B3 Notice dt.15.12.2015. I submit that after the said survey and demarcation, the Plaintiffs and their associates having withdrawn from the suit agreement of sale, subsequently taking advantage of steep rise in the value, the Petitioners herein came up with above false suit by suppressing the real facts once again by falsely describing the entire suit land in three survey numbers as contiguous piece of land”. 18. As per Ex.B3 coupled with the above said para goes to show that land in survey Nos.28, 880, 898 is surveyed and demarcated. 18. As per Ex.B3 coupled with the above said para goes to show that land in survey Nos.28, 880, 898 is surveyed and demarcated. When the land of the respondent Nos.1 and 2-petitioners- defendant Nos.1 and 2 is already surveyed and demarcated, the question of again appointing an Advocate Commissioner to localise Acs.07-00 guntas of land already conveyed to M/s. Sri Sai Shiva Developers and to localise three distinct pieces of land covered by Development Agreement, dated 19.03.2016 and to localise the suit schedule property by preparing sketch and filing report is unjustified. Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.