THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.5631 of 2009 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.270 of 2008 in the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, for the relief of declaration of title and injunction. He filed I.A.No.713 of 2009, under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C., with a prayer to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner, to visit the suit schedule property, and to localize the same together with the road, and fix the boundaries with the assistance of departmental surveyor, on the basis of the sale deeds, filed by the respective parties. The petitioner opposed the application. Through its order dated 13-11-2009, the trial Court allowed the I.A, and appointed the Commissioner. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The record discloses that the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.830 of 2009 with a prayer to appoint the Mandal Surveyor to localize the suit schedule property and fix the boundaries. That was dismissed on the ground that a Mandal Surveyor cannot be appointed, unless an Advocate-Commissioner is appointed. Obviously, in view of that observation, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.713 of 2009, under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. The trial Court did not advert do the contention of the parties, and straightaway appointed the Commissioner. The trial of the suit is yet to commence. The prayer in the I.A. is to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner, to fix the boundaries and demarcate the suit schedule property. Such a step is totally impermissible, at the present stage. It is for the 1st respondent to prove the facts, pleaded by him, by adducing evidence. If he is not sure about the boundaries of the property, and is not able to localize it, in a way, it would tell upon the very basis of his claim. The appointment of a Commissioner, with the sole object of localizing the land, at this stage, would constitute a step, to gather evidence. Hence, the C.R.P is allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. It is directed that, if, after the trial of the suit commences, and the Court feels that the situation warrants appointment of a Commissioner, this order would not come in the way of such an exercise. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.02-02-2010. KO