THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6169 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners filed O.S.No.68 of 2009 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur, against the respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. In I.A.No.310 of 2009 filed under Order – XXXIX Rules - 1 and 2 CPC the trial Court passed an order of interim injunction on 08-05-2010. Alleging that the respondent violated the order of temporary injunction, the petitioners filed I.A.No.379 of 2009 under Rule 2(A) of Order - XXXIX CPC. During the course of enquiry in the said I.A., the petitioners filed I.A.398 of 2009 under Order - XXVI Rule - 9 CPC with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the present physical features and the stage of construction. The application was opposed by the respondent. Through order, dated 19-11-2010, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. 2. Sri B.Vijay Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the appointment of Commissioner would help the Court in arriving at a proper conclusion as to whether any construction was made subsequent to the orders of interim injunction. He submits that though a Commissioner was appointed on earlier occasion, the report filed by him would reflect the stage of the construction, before the order of temporary injunction was granted. 3. The effort of the petitioners in filing IA.398 of 2009 is to establish that the respondent has proceeded with the construction in contravention of the order of the interim injunction passed in I.A.No.310 of 2009. The record discloses that a Commissioner has already been appointed at the instance of the petitioners and that he has submitted a report. The report can be taken use of, by the petitioners and establish that further construction was made subsequent to the submission of report. For that purpose, the petitioners can adduce oral or documentary evidence in the course of enquiry in I.A.No.379 of 2009. He cannot expect the Court to gather material to prove his case. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter. This court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J January 20, 2011. KTL/VJL