THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3595 of 2008 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.07.2008 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in I.A.No.560 of 2008 in O.S.No.332 of 2006, whereby the application filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property, was dismissed. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction with regard to the suit schedule property, which is a vacant site. The petitioner/defendant claimed possession over the said property with a rival title. According to the petitioner, on the respondent entering into the agreement of sale on 25.02.1983 with him agreeing to sell the property for Rs.4,300/- he paid Rs.3,180/- to the society on 31.03.1983 and the balance amount to the respondent. Though possession of the property was delivered to the petitioner under a hand written letter dated 14.02.2001, sale deed was not executed in his favour. Therefore, the petitioner filed another suit in O.S.No.3062 of 2003 before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for specific performance of agreement of sale. On decreeing the said suit, a sale deed was executed in E.P.No.174 of 2005 and since then he was enjoying the plaint schedule property by raising the level of the land and fencing. Hence, he filed the above I.A seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the schedule property for the purpose of effective adjudication. The lower Court dismissed the I.A. on the ground that as it is a suit for injunction simplicitor, it is for the plaintiff to prove and establish his title over the property as on the date of filing of the suit and that since the suit is coming up for the defendant’s evidence, there is no need to appoint any Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice, the respondent/plaintiff did not choose to put up appearance opposing the petition. This Court in identical circumstances in Varala Ramachandra Reddy v. Mekala Yadi Reddy[1] held that the Court can appoint a Commissioner for local inspection of the suit premises even in injunction suit and even ex parte before service of notice on opposite party in the interest of justice. Since the petitioner/defendant obtained a sale deed from the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property by executing the decree in execution proceedings, it is deemed that he has been delivered possession by the Court on such execution. To prove the improvements made thereon, the petitioner sought to note down the physical features of the property by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. In view of the same, the lower Court committed an error in dismissing I.A. for the reasons aforementioned. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 11.02.2011 va [1] 2010 (4) ALD 198