(1) The respondent filed OS No.224 of 2001 against the petitioner in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of Ac.1-41 cents in RS No.531/1 of Modumudi Village. About six years thereafter, he filed IA No.384 of 2007 under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC with a prayer to appoint a Commissioner - (a) to identify the suit schedule property, (b) to fix the boundaries thereof with reference to FMB with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, Avanigadda, (c) to measure the land in his possession in RS No.532/1 of that village and (d) to measure the remaining land in possession of one Katikala Srinivasa Rao of that village.

(2) It appears that the application was ordered on 2.8.2007. The petitioner states that the Commissioner, in pursuance of the said order, conducted the survey without issuing proper notice. He filed IA No.1 194 of 2007 with a prayer to appoint another Advocate-Commissioner. The LA. was dismissed on 26.2.2008.

(3) The petitioner filed IA No.269 of 2008 almost with similar prayer, by making reference to its earlier order in IA No.1194 of 2007, the trial Court dismissed IA No.269 of 2008 through its order, dated 9.6.2008. Hence, this revision.

(4) Sri P.R. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the scope of IA No.384 of 2007 itself was too wide in the context of the relief claimed in the suit and the Commissioner has submitted report without executing the warrant in accordance with law. He submits that the petitioner is left with no alternative except to seek the appointment of another Commissioner.

(5 ) Sri C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that it is well settled principle of law that as long as the report submitted by a Commissioner remains intact, the question of appointing another Commissioner does not arise. He further submits that the petitioner can put forward his objections to the report and the trial Court, in turn, can be directed to consider the same as and when occasion arises.

(6) The suit filed by the respondent is for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of Ac.1-41 cents of land in RS No.531/1 of Modumudi Village. The respondent was supposed to be aware of the specific boundaries of the property and its other details. Long after the suit was filed, he filed IA No.1194 of 2007 with a relief, which travels far beyond the scope of the suit itself. The reliefs claimed in the I.A. have already been set out in brief in the preceding paragraphs.

(7) Time and again this Court held that a Commissioner cannot be appointed to gather evidence for and on behalf of any party. It is for the party concerned, to establish its case and the feasibility of appointing a Commissioner will be considered, if the Court feels that inspection and further enquiry is necessary, having regard to the uncertainty, that came into existence, after the trial has progressed to certain extent. In the instant case, the respondent not only wanted the Commissioner to identify the suit schedule property and fix the boundaries thereof, but also to file a report, as to his possession over the land in RS No.532/1 of that village and the one in possession of a person who is not a party to the suit.

(8) It needs to be noted that the report on those aspects, which would become part of the record, will have its own impact on the rights of other parties and in relation to property which is not the subject-matter of the suit. Though the scope of present revision petition is very limited, this Court is constrained to make the observations vis-a-vis the order passed in IA No.1194 of 2007, lest there exists an occasion for miscarriage of justice. It is competent for this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set right the deviations, if any, that have taken place before the Courts subordinate to it.

(9) The occasion for the petitioner to file successive applications for appointment of a fresh Commissioner arose on account of the order passed in IA No.384 of 2007 and the report submitted therein. Once it is found that the order passed in IA No.384 of 2007, and in fact, the prayer made therein, is beyond the scope of the suit, this Court cannot remain oblivious to it. Even now, the respondent can modify the prayer therein, in such a way that it does not exceed the scope of the suit and if the circumstances warrant, the trial Court can consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

(10) Hence, the revision is allowed. The order, dated 2/8/2007, passed in IA No.384 of 2007 is set aside. IA No.269 of 2008 filed by the petitioner is held to be superfluous. The trial Court shall return IA No.384 of 2007 to the respondent, for modifying the prayer therein, to be in conformity with the subject-matter of the suit, and necessary orders shall be passed therein, after hearing both the parties, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the suit is of the year 2001, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the same as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.