THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :3534 of 2009 ORDER: The present revision petition is filed by the petitioners against the order passed in I.A.No:689 of 2009 in O.S.No:390 of 2004 on 4.7.2009 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Court below. The defendants have filed I.A.689 of 2009 before the Court below under order 26 rule 9 C.P.C to appoint an advocate commissioner so as to localize the schedule property within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule and to note down the property covered under the boundaries mentioned in the written statement and to prepare a rough plan of the property. The Court below having observed that after conclusion of the trial, the plaintiffs filed the written arguments and when the matter is coming up for arguments of the defendants, the defendants have come up with the present petition and both the parties adduced sufficient evidence as per the issues already settled for trial and therefore, the present petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings and there are no bonafides in filing the present petition, dismissed the petition. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred by the defendants. Heard the learned counsel and perused the entire material available on record. Before going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that the suit is of the year 2004 and the trial was commenced in the year 2006 and the evidence on both sides was concluded and the plaintiffs have filed their written arguments and when the matter is posted for arguments on behalf of the defendants, the present application is filed in the year 2009 seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner. In this background of the matter, I feel that the approach of the defendants seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner at this stage of the proceedings, does not appear to be a bonafide one as rightly observed by the Court below. Order 26 rule 9 C.P.C makes it clear that in any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, the Court may issue a commission. It can be said that appointment of an advocate commissioner, is based on the discretion vested with the Court and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In this view of the matter and in view of the reasons in the foregoing paragraphs, I have no hesitation to hold that the reasoning assigned by the Court below while dismissing the claim of the defendants for appointment of an advocate commissioner, is just and proper and therefore, the order impugned herein does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Hence, this revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed Dated: 13.8.2009 Gurc. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3534 OF 2009 13.08.2009