THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6145 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendant in O.S.No.636 of 2010 aggrieved by order, dated 28.10.2010 passed in I.A.No.934 of 2010 in C.M.A.No.75 of 2010 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Warangal. The respondent/plaintiff has filed aforesaid suit for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property viz., plot No.56 in Survey Nos.526 to 530 of Waddepally Village, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. Pending the suit, he sought temporary injunction orders in I.A.No.792 of 2010, which in turn, was dismissed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, on 09.07.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent carried the matter in appeal in C.M.A.No.75 of 2010, in which, he has filed I.A.No.934 of 2010 under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking to appoint Advocate Commissioner to ascertain whether the suit schedule property is in plot No.55 or plot No.56 with the help of Surveyor from Kakatiya Urban Development Authority (KUDA). The Court below allowed the said I.A. by the impugned order. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is contended by Sri K.Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that the suit is for injunction simplicitor and in the schedule, the property is categorically mentioned as plot No.56 in Survey Nos.526 to 530 of Waddepally Village, Hanamkonda, as such, locating the suit schedule property does not arise and no Commissioner can be appointed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for such purpose. It is also contended that in spite of valid defence in the aforesaid I.A., the Court below has erroneously allowed I.A.No.934 of 2010. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff that on the ground that the petitioner/defendant has obtained regularization in respect of plot No.55, proceedings were initiated by KUDA to cancel such regularization on an application submitted by the respondent/plaintiff. It is further submitted that as against the same, the petitioner/defendant approached this Court and obtained interim orders. It is also submitted that in view of the clarification given by KUDA, it is necessary to appoint Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the suit schedule property. In this case, it is to be noticed that the suit is for injunction simplicitor and the suit schedule property is shown as plot No.56 in Survey Nos.526 to 530 of Waddepally, Hanamkonda, Warangal. The issue to be decided in the suit is whether the respondent/plaintiff is in possession of the suit property viz., plot bearing No.56. It is well settled that the Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect the evidence and to decide the issue involved in the suit. In the impugned order, the Court below appointed the Advocate Commissioner to survey the suit land and to locate whether it is in plot No.55 or plot No.56. Such an exercise is impermissible under law. If the petitioner/defendant claims that she is in possession of the suit schedule property, it is for her to prove the same by adducing cogent evidence. For the aforesaid reasons, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and Order, dated 28.10.2010, passed in I.A.No.934 of 2010 is set aside. Consequently, the said I.A. stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th JULY, 2011. kvni