HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3465 of 2005 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29.06.2009 in I.A.No.245 of 2009 in O.S.No.1 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.32 to 36 in the suit O.S.No.1 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram, filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein for declaration of title and for eviction of defendants Nos.1 to 36. It is the case of the petitioners, who are defendants 1 to 36, that the suit schedule property was gifted under a registered gift deed dated 25.03.1908 marked as Ex.B.77. The petitioners herein filed an application in I.A.No. 245 of 2009, under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC, for appointment of an Advocate as Commissioner for local inspection of the suit schedule property and to localize the same with reference to the boundaries in Ex.B.77, settlement deed, and to note down the physical features. By the impugned order dated 29.06.2009, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram, allowed the said application appointing an advocate as Commissioner to localize the suit schedule property with reference to the boundaries in Ex.B.77, Settlement deed dated 25.03.1908; to localize the land in Sy.No.80/7; to measure the same; and to note down the physical features with reference to revenue records by taking the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the application was filed by the petitioners only to make local inspection with reference to Ex.B.77, settlement deed, filed by them but not with reference to other survey numbers belonging to others and also to localize the land in Sy.No.80/7, which is covered by Ex.B.77. He further submits that Ex.B.77 does not have any survey number. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that Sy.No.80/7 was wrongly mentioned in Ex.B.77 but, in fact, the plaint schedule property is covered by Sy.No.102/2 but not Sy.No.80/7 and, therefore, localization of the land in Sy.No.80/7 cannot be made. Admittedly, an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to gather evidence under the guise of making local inspection. It is for the plaintiffs to prove the averments in the plaint and succeed on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by them but either the plaintiffs or the defendants can be permitted to gather evidence through Advocate Commissioner. The responsibility and duty of the respective parties cannot be relegated to the Advocate Commissioner. It is not a suit for partition. A decree is yet to be passed in the suit. Therefore, the limited scope available to the Advocate Commissioner is to note down the physical features, if any, which are under controversy. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order, appointing the Advocate Commissioner to localize the suit schedule property with reference to the boundaries in Ex.B.77; to localize the land in Sy.No.80/7; to measure the same and note down the physical features with reference to the revenue records, is illegal and erroneous. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. However, it is open to the petitioners to make a fresh application, if they are so advised, to make local inspection for noting down the physical features alone. No order as to costs. V. ESWARAIAH,J Date:11.02.2011 usd