THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4953 OF 2011 24.11.2011 Between: Vemulapalli Ramulu …Petitioner AND Kondu Ramulu …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4953 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.939 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. He filed the suit against sole respondent/defendant for declaration of title and possession in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.0.08½ cents out of Acs.1.29 cents comprised in R.S.No.190/2 situated at Purushothapatnam, Seethanagaram Mandal, which he claimed to be his absolute property. He filed the application being I.A.No.412 of 2011 under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for appointment of Court Commissioner for the purpose of noticing the physical features of the suit schedule land and localize the suit schedule property. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 09.08.2011. Aggrieved by which, present civil revision petition is filed. Counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner has given duly describing suit schedule land by giving boundaries of the land. The trial Court, however, did not consider the application for appointment of Court Commissioner on the ground that the defendant obtained a decree in O.S.No.396 of 1985, which is erroneous. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the respondent herein filed O.S.No.396 of 1985 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry and for declaration and injunction and the same was decreed. There is no dispute that the petitioner also filed the present suit only in respect of suit property and therefore, if any Court Commissioner is appointed, it would cause prejudice to the defendant. Further, when the petitioner has filed the suit for declaration and injunction, the burden lies on him and the Court process cannot be used for collecting evidence. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any grave error apparent on the face of record. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 24.11.2011 Pln