THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.1234 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.219 of 2007 against the respondent for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property; in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni. The respondent filed written-statement, resisting the case of the petitioner. The trial of the suit commenced. In the course of cross-examination of the petitioner herein, as PW-1, the counsel for the respondent suggested that the boundaries of the suit schedule property are different from those, mentioned in the document, relied upon by the petitioner. In view of this, the petitioner filed I.A.No.318 of 2010, under Rule 9 of Order 26 C.P.C., with a prayer to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner to note the physical features, and present boundaries of the suit schedule house. The application was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 31- 08-2010. The same is challenged in this C.R.P. Heard Sri D. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. In a suit for partition, the occasion to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner arises, mostly at the stage of final decree proceedings. The necessity to appoint Advocate-Commissioner during the course of trial, generally, does not arise. The scope of adjudication at that stage would be, to ascertain the properties, that are available for partition, and to determine the shares of the respective parties. The physical features or boundaries of the property do not matter. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter, and no interference is warranted with it. The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-04-2011. KO