THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.775 of 200 Date of Order: 21-01-2011 Between: Maddula Vivekananda ..Petitioner and 1. H.Ratnakar Thyagaraj and others ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.775 of 2008 Oral order: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution by the petitioner/plaintiff is to revise the orders of the VII Additional District Judge- cum-Fast Track Court, Vijayawada made in I.A.No.117 of 2008 in O.S.No.5 of 2008 whereby the petition filed by the 1st defendant for appointment of a Commissioner for local inspection and to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property as on the date and to file report was allowed. The petitioner/plaintiff instituted the above suit for permanent injunction, in which he filed I.A.No.86 of 2008 seeking ex-parte injunction, which was granted by the lower court. On service of the same, the 1st respondent/1st defendant filed the above IA for appointment of Commissioner contending that under the garb of injunction the petitioner/plaintiff wants to dispossess them from the suit schedule premises where they are running auto garage; two huts are in existence as on today, one hut is being used by watchman—S.Ganga Raju and in another hut tables, chair and furniture was kept. As the 1st respondent/1st defendant intended to develop the property he dumped 50 lorries of soil with reddish tingue and the plaintiff suppressing the fact of their possession and enjoyment filed the above suit and obtained ex- parte injunction; therefore, advocate commissioner may be appointed to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that O.S.No.2092 of 2004 filed by one Pothuri Bhargava Varma; O.S.No.2111 of 2004 filed by one Pethuri Vekata Durga Sridevi and O.S.No.2112 of 2004 filed by one Palvadi Naga Kishore and another and O.S.No.2506 of 2004 filed by one Dasari Nageswara Rao were dismissed for default and the petitioner/plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. In view of the same, the lower court is not justified in appointing Commissioner even before the petitioner discloses the defence. In support of her contention reliance is placed on the judgment of this court in G. HANUMANTHA RAO @ ANJANEYULU v. BATTIGIRI RAMULU[1]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contends that once the defendants are in possession of the property, to note down the physical features about the existence of huts in the suit schedule property, appointment of advocate Commissioner is necessary. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in SURYANARAYANA REDDY v. NAWAB MD. KABIRUDDIN KHAN[2] and HARYANA WAKF BOARD v. SHANTI SARUP[3]. He also contends that the petitioner has filed revision against the docket order without filing the detailed order and obtained suspension. The detailed order gave elaborate reasons for appointment of Commissioner, which needs no interference. There is no straightjacket formula for appointment of Commissioner. This court in G.HANUMANTHA RAO’s case (1 supra) held the contentions of the parties, as to the possession over the suit schedule property, need to be appreciated, with reference to the evidence, that may be adduced, be it at the interlocutory or the final stage. The appointment of Commissioners, at the initial stages is prone to be treated as step to gather evidence. Therefore, the courts discourse the filing of applications under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC in the suits for injunction, at the initial stages. It is for the plaintiff to establish that he was in possession as on the date of institution of the suit and mere filing of decrees in the suits filed by third parties, as they were dismissed for default, will not prove the plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule property. The lower court by elaborate reasons, viz., to prove the possession over the suit schedule property the respondents immediately after granting ex-parte injunction filed the application for appointment of Commissioner to note down the physical features categorically asserting that there are two huts; in one hut watchman is living along with family and in another hut tables and chairs are kept, where there is a running auto garage and also dumping gravel to raise the hut in the suit schedule property. The petitioner/plaintiff has also not stated about the existence of auto garage and huts where the watchman is living along with family. To note down the physical features Commissioner should be appointed and accordingly allowed the I.A. The petitioner will have an opportunity to file objections to the report, if any, filed by the Commissioner and the order will not attain finality, as the lower court may accept or reject the report. The case on hand will not fall under any of the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court in SURYA DEVA RAI v. RAM CHANDER RAI[4]; for exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, if the order will not allow to stand, finally it is incapable of correction in appeal and order allowed to stand will cause great prejudice or irreparable injury to the petitioner. This court does not find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 21-01-2011 Murthy [1] 2008 (1) ALD 466 [2] (2004) 13 SCC 703 [3] (2008) 6 SCC 671 [4] (2003) 6 SCC 675 = AIR 2003 SC 3044