THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.3768 of 2011 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 06.06.2011 made in I.A.No.1219 of 2011 in O.S.No.61 of 2011 by the learned First Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby the petition filed by the revision petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the said suit, under Order XXVI Rules 9 & 10 r/w Section 151 CPC for appointment of an advocate commissioner to inspect and verify the premises of the petitioner association and submit Weekly / monthly reports, if necessary along with video and photos of the premises, was dismissed. 2 The petitioner Association was registered on 29.03.2011 under the A.P. Societies Registration Act and is carrying on activities in the premises bearing Plot No.33, Nandamuri Nagar, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad. The respondents are interfering with the legal and peaceful activities of the petitioner Association and are threatening the members that some of the activities being conducted by the Association attract the provisions of Sections 3 & 4 of A.P. Gaming Act. Hence the petitioner filed O.S.No.61 of 2011 and in the said suit the petitioner also filed an application requesting the court below to appoint an advocate Commissioner to inspect and verify the premises of the petitioner association and submit Weekly / monthly reports, if necessary along with video and photos of the premises. 3 In the said petition, the respondents have filed a detailed counter denying all the averments stating that in the place of petitioner Association, another sports and cultural club is existing and that the said club filed a similar suit before the XI Junior Civil Judge’s court, Secunderabad in O.S.No.770 of 2010 against the respondents for perpetual injunction. The petitioner Association is formed and registered on the same address as that of Mahindra Hills Sports & Cultural Association Club. The said club also filed a writ petition before this court and it is learnt that the petitioner Association is not conducting any games or sports. The petitioner association was started only to run the card room by allowing the members to play three card game which does not depend on skill, but only a game of fluke and other illegal games with high stakes under the guise of rummy. 4 The court below, having considered the entire material placed before it dismissed the said application by passing the order impugned in this revision observing that the previous name of the club was changed though it runs in the same premises and again registered in the name of Soni Sports & Cultural Welfare Association and filed Writ Petition No.8983 of 2011 before this court just within a week from the date of its registration. The Court below further observed that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner Association is still pending before this court and if at all the petitioner has any grievance about the implementation of the order of the High Court, it can approach the High Court and seek redressal. The court below also observed that the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted since it is not possible for the Commissioner to observe the activities of the club for 24 hours like a watchman. As stated supra, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision. 5 Heard the counsel for the petitioner. 6 Appointment of an advocate commissioner under Order XXVI Rules 9 & 10 CPC is purely discretionary of the court. In the present case, the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad has rightly exercised the right vested in him in dismissing the petition filed for that purpose. As rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, it is not possible for the Commissioner to observe the activities of the petitioner club all the 24 hours of the day like a watchman and the Court cannot be saddled to collect evidence at the behest of a party. 7 In that view of the matter, I see no grounds to interfere with the order impugned in this revision since there is no illegality or irregularity in exercising the discretionary power vested in the trial court in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8 Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. No costs. ------------------------------ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 21.10.2011 Kvsn