THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1255 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 11.02.2008, in I.A.No.913 of 2007 in O.S.No.270 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor District, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein-defendants under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property with the help of a Mandal Surveyor and note the physical features, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Respondent herein filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners-defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land of three items, which according to him are situate in Sy.No.27/5. Petitioners-defendants filed written statement contesting the suit and also disputing the identity of the suit property. After settlement of the issues, the trial of the suit has commenced and evidence on both sides is also recorded. At that stage, the defendants filed I.A.No.913 of 2007 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the above said purpose. Respondent herein-plaintiff filed a counter opposing the said application. The learned Junior Civil Judge, vide impugned order dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the application is belated and secondly that no Commissioner can be appointed for the purpose of collection of evidence. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the application filed by the defendants, was dismissed on the ground of delay the trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff for reopening of evidence and further evidence was also permitted to be adduced by the plaintiff and the matter reached the stage of arguments. 5. Be that as it may, according to the petitioners- defendants plaintiff has wrongly given the survey number as 127/5 to knock away the suit property. According to the defendants, the suit property is situate in Sy.No.127/4 and not in 127/5 and the plaintiff has no right whatsoever over the land situate in Sy.No.127/4 but he is trying to encroach upon the suit land by giving wrong boundaries and mentioning the survey number as 127/5. Thus, the dispute between the parties is whether the suit land is situate in Sy.No.127/4 as claimed by the petitioners or in Sy.No.127/5 as contended by the respondent-plaintiff. The said dispute regarding the location of the land can be resolved only after the suit land is localized by necessary measurements with the help of a qualified surveyor. The trial Court has to necessarily adjudicate upon the dispute as to where exactly the suit land is situate and whether or not the plaintiff is having any rights over the suit land while considering the grant of refusal of the relief of injunction. The report of the Advocate Commissioner, duly localizing the suit land with the help of a qualified surveyor, would certainly assist the trial Court in a big way to adjudicate upon the dispute in an effective and comprehensive manner. The appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the said purpose cannot be construed as means of collection of evidence and on the other hand, in a factual situation like the one obtaining in the present suit, it would only assist the Court in rendering substantial justice between the parties by effective adjudication of the real dispute between them. In the circumstances, it is considered to be a fit case where the Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to localize the suit land by taking necessary measurements with the help of a Mandal Surveyor and note the physical features thereof and file a report. It is open to both parties to file necessary work memos before the Advocate Commissioner, which shall be answered by him. The trial Court may fix a reasonable remuneration to the Advocate Commissioner to be appointed. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and consequently I.A.No.913 of 2007 stands allowed. 6. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed as stated above. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 21st October, 2011. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within one week. B/o Tsy