HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P. No. 3808 of 2011 DATED: 09.09.2011 Between: Smt. S.Subhadramma .. Petitioner And 1. E.Laxmaiah 2. Smt.E.Sarojana .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 03.08.2011 passed in I.A. No. 659 of 2010 in O.S. No. 2431 of 2010 by X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby the application filed by the revision petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property to note down the illegal structures, additions and alterations raised by the respondents in the open space and removal of common wall on northern side of the opening doors with reference to the sale deeds of both the parties and take photographs, was dismissed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents removed the wall existing in front of the respondents’ portion, raised illegal structures and made additions and alterations in the open space, as such, there is any amount of necessity for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the illegal structures raised by the respondents. Therefore, the order impugned in this petition is liable to be set aside. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the order under revision. This suit is filed for grant of mandatory injunction. The main dispute between the parties is that the respondents removed the wall existing in front of their portion, raised certain illegal structures and made additions and alteration in the open space. The respondents filed counter affidavit before the trial Court inter alia denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application. Further, the provision of Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC reads thus: “Commissions to make local investigations:- In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigating and to report thereon to the Court. From the above provision of law, local investigation does not mean the investigation of any illegal structures or additions and alterations alleged to have been made by the petitioner in the open space. In case, an Advocate Commissioner is appointed by this Court at this stage for the purpose with which the application is filed, it would definitely mean an effort to gather evidence in favour of either of the party. Further, there can be no dispute on the proposition of law laid down by this Court in Sagi Vijaya Ramachandra Raju & Others vs. Koppisetti Satyanarayana and Others[1], which was referred to by the trial Court. It clearly enumerates that it is the party, which seeks relief of injunction, has to prove possession over the property and establish a prima facie case, and appointment of Commissioner, at that stage, would certainly be a step to enable the party to gather evidence. In fact, the dispute involved between the parties is with regard to mandatory injunction and such dispute shall be adjudicated only after full-pledged trial and not by merely appointing an Advocate Commissioner. In view of the above, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition fails, and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 09.09.2011 bcj [1] 2009(5) ALD 459