THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3733 of 2011 ORDER The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.219 of 2009 before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for declaration of his ownership over the suit schedule property and delivery of vacant possession to him and also for damages. On dismissal of the said suit, he carried the matter in appeal. Pending the appeal, he filed I.A.No.394 of 2007 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of recording the physical status of the suit schedule land by measuring the suit schedule land with the assistance of the Town Surveyor, Vijayawada, as per the patta granted in his favour on 22.10.1977, which was not available with him at the time of the suit. The lower appellate Court, by the impugned order, after referring to the judgment of this Court in Yenugonda Balreddy v. Manemma[1], wherein it was held that when the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property, it is for him to establish the same, and that the circumstances weighed with the court below in holding that an advocate commissioner need not be appointed and the said finding appears to be correct, which needs no interference; held that the present application is nothing but collecting the evidence if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed, and accordingly dismissed the Interlocutory Application. The ratio laid down in Yenugonda Balreddy’s case does not apply to the facts of the present case, since in the said case, suit was filed for injunction and hence it is for the plaintiff to plead and establish his possession. Since the present suit is filed for recovery of the suit schedule property assigned to him under the patta dated 22.10.1977, the lower appellate Court fell in error in considering the reasons recorded by the lower Court and dismissing the Interlocutory Application. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the lower appellate Court to decide the same afresh independently, after providing an opportunity to the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 14.10.2011 va [1] 2011 (2) ALD 472