IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5374 OF 2010 Between: Bikki Chitragudappa. --- Petitioner/ Plaintiff. AND Jetti Venkataswamy and two others. --- Respondents/ Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5374 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the docket order dated 20-09- 2010 made in I.A. No.58 of 2010 in O.S. No.96 of 2005, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kalyandurg, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the petition schedule property was dismissed on the ground that it amounts to collection of evidence. 2. The Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed with regard to the prayer sought for as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition. It is stated in the affidavit that to disprove the contention of the respondents, it is just and necessary to appoint Advocate Commissioner to decide the case as to whose version of the parties is right and justifiable. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents objected him in laying water pipeline in the disputed place. 3. Whether the place of pipeline laid in front of the house of the petitioner is a public or private rasta cannot be determined by the Advocate Commissioner. The purpose for which the commissioner is to be appointed has been enumerated under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. If it is the case of noting down the physical features, when there is a dispute between the parties, then it would be a different matter. But, as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the appointment of Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule site and to decide the dispute is nothing but to collect the evidence. 4. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in not entertaining the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ K.C.BHANU, J. Dt.08-12-2010. DSH