THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2155 OF 2010 DATED: 29-01-2011 Between: Gangam Malla Reddy. .... PETITIONER And Kodipalli Gangaiah & 2 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 23-03-2010, in I.A.No.316 of 2009 in O.S.No.59 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order XXVI Rule 6 CPC for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Respondents herein filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule land, which according to them, is situate in Sy.No.10/E. Petitioner- defendant filed his written statement contending that the plaint schedule land is situate in Sy.No.11, which is adjacent to Sy.No.10/E and that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. He further pleads that even prior to filing the suit, in view of the dispute, he got the land surveyed on his own, through the revenue authorities and the Deputy Inspector of Survey fixed the boundaries also demarcating that the suit land is situate in Sy.No.11 but not in Sy.No.10/E, as claimed by the plaintiff. 4. The trial court framed a specific issue No.2 to the effect whether the plaint schedule land is part and parcel of the land of the defendant in Sy.No.11 as pleaded by the defendant in the written statement. The burden of proof pertaining to issue No.2 squarely lies on the defendant to establish that the suit land is part and parcel of Sy.No.11 as pleaded by him. In order to discharge the said burden, he filed an application I.A.No.316 of 2009 seeking appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to demarcate the suit land. Previously, the trial Court dismissed the said application by observing that when already the suit land was demarcated by the defendant himself, again there is no need to appoint Advocate-Commissioner for the same purpose. The earlier demarcation of the suit land by the defendant was on his own and prior to filing of the suit and the plaintiff never admitted the same. When the plaintiff is contending that the suit land is part of the Sy.No.10/E, the defendant is certainly entitled to establish that the suit land is part of Sy.No.11 by adducing necessary evidence before the Court. The request of the defendant for appointment of Commissioner for the above said purpose is certainly justified. Though it is for the plaintiff to file the suit for injunction to show that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land as claimed by him, it is open to the defendant to expose the falsity of the claim of the plaintiff by showing that the suit land is not situate in Sy.No.10/E, as claimed by the plaintiff, but in fact, situate in Sy.No.11. Especially, in view of the specific issue framed in that regard and the burden of proof of which squarely lies on the defendants, the impugned order, refusing to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner, is therefore misconceived and unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The trial Court is directed to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner for the purpose of local inspection and demarcation of he suit land with the help of the Mandal Surveyor and file a report, duly noting the physical features and also answering the work memos, if any, filed by both parties. The trial Court shall fix the remuneration of the Advocate-Commissioner and other terms in a proper manner. 5. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Interim stay granted on 01-06-2010 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th January, 2011. Tsy