The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.5046 of 2011 Date: 02-12-2011 Between: Gangadevi Andalu and 4 others ..... Petitioners AND Avula Anjamma and 4 others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.M.Venkatram Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.Abhishek Reddy The Court made the following : Order: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 22-01-2011, in IA.No.978 of 2010 in IA.No.721 of 2010 in OS.No.172 of 2010, on the ﬁle of the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. The petitioners are defendants in the suit ﬁled by the respondents for permanent injunction. It is the case of the petitioners that their lands are situated in Survey No.94. While majority lands of the respondents/plaintiﬀs are situated in Survey No.93, an extent of Ac.1-15 guntas in Survey No.94, on the southern side of Survey No.93, belongs to the petitioners. In the application filed for injunction by the respondents, the petitioners ﬁled IA.No.978 of 2010 for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to measure the land with the aid of Mandal Surveyor and demarcate the boundaries to resolve the dispute. The respondents have resisted the said application by ﬁling a counter- affidavit. The Court below, while rejecting the same, has observed that, the petitioners have, in their written statement, denied the respondents’ claim of possession over Ac.7-25 guntas in Survey No.93 while admitting their purchase and issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the suit land in their favour and that the petitioners have also pleaded that, under the guise of the present suit, the respondents are trying to grab their lands, which were subject matter of OS.Nos.216 and 217 of 2009, ﬁled by petitioner Nos.2 & 3 and petitioner Nos.4 & 5 respectively. The Court below has further observed that the petitioners have not denied the boundaries shown by the respondents in the suit schedule lands and that the purpose, for which the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is sought, could not be explained by the petitioners properly. The lower Court also opined that the question whether the respondents are in possession of the suit land in Survey No.93 or not cannot be decided by appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner and that, in a suit for perpetual injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiﬀs to prove their possession by adducing evidence and such evidence cannot be gathered by appointing an Advocate-Commissioner. Having closely examined the reasoning of the Court below, I am of the opinion that the same does not suﬀer from any illegality or irregularity. Having ﬁled the suit, the burden lies on the respondents to prove their case. Therefore, it is not necessary for the petitioners to seek appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for demarcation of boundaries, more so, when they have not disputed the boundaries mentioned by the plaintiﬀs in the suit, as observed by the Court below. The respondents are entitled to adduce the necessary evidence in support of their pleas while resisting the suit filed by the respondents. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, CRPMP.No.7163 of 2011, ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 2nd December, 2011 LUR