THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 1617 of 2010 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 10.03.2010, passed by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 858 of 2009 in O.S. No. 2785 of 2006, filed by the petitioner praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, for localization of the suit schedule property by demarcation of the same with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the respondent had contended that the suit schedule property does not fall in the survey numbers as claimed by him, it is necessary that an Advocate Commissioner should be appointed to localize and demarcate the suit schedule property. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted, because it is the specific case of the respondent that earlier suits in respect of the suit schedule property were settled against the petitioner and his vendors, and this apart, the petitioner as P.W.1, in the cross-examination, had admitted that the suit schedule property is the one that is covered by the decision in the suits that were settled against him. Be that as it may, the petitioner filed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, and the law is well settled that the plaintiff who seeks the relief, has to prove his case by adducing oral and documentary evidence, and he cannot be permitted to take the assistance of an Advocate Commissioner, to collect evidence, for him. The fact that the petitioner is seeking to take the assistance of the Advocate Commissioner to collect evidence for him is evident from that fact that in the affidavit filed in support of the present application, he specifically stated that to corroborate his contention, it is just and necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, for the purpose of localization of the suit schedule property and demarcation of the same with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor. Hence, no exception can be taken to the order under revision passed by the Court below refusing to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for localization by demarcation of the suit schedule property with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor. In the above view of the matter, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 25th June, 2010 KSR