THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.142 of 2011 ORDER: This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 08.06.2010 in I.A.No.65 of 2009 in O.S.No.1200 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The petitioner herein is the defendant. He filed I.A.No.65 of 2009 in O.S.No.1200 of 2008 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features and take photographs of standing cotton crop, well electric current motor existing on the suit land. His main case is that the well and electric motor stands with service number in his name. The respondent/plaintiff filed a counter-affidavit in the said I.A. contending that the said petition has been filed just to drag on the matter and that there is no necessity to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to observe the physical features of the suit land. The lower Court, by the impugned order, observed that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to prove the possession of the party and accordingly dismissed the petition. The only point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether there are any grounds to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Chintapatla Arvind Babu vs. Smt. K.Balakistamma alias Bhargavi[1], wherein it was held that when a party complains that the opposite party was attempting to disturb the features and applies for appointment of a Commissioner under Order XVI Rule 9 C.P.C. refusal to allow such petition prevents the party from having clinching evidence in proving the said fact and then it will be one of adjudicating about the right of the party to adduce evidence. He has also relied on another judgment of Madras High Court in Ponnusamy Pandaram vs. The Salem Vaiyappamalai Jangamar Sangam[2], wherein it was held that where in the suit for injunction to restrain the defendant from digging foundations and putting up constructions on the suit land belonging to the plaintiff, the defendant claimed that the foundations were dug by him in his own land and a controversy arose as to whether the foundations and constructions put up by the defendant were within his own land or whether they had encroached into the lands of the plaintiff, a local investigation would be the best way to find out the position and the defendant coveting to place the evidence before the Court through local investigation by the Commissioner under Order XVI Rule 9 C.P.C. cannot be shut out of that right. Therefore, refusal of the request of the defendant to appoint a Commissioner under Order XVI Rule 9 C.P.C. to make a local investigation amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by the Court justifying interference by the High Court in revision under Section 115 C.P.C. He further relied on the decision in Rangayya Kanantha vs. Govinda Chatra[3], wherein it was held that the local investigation made by the Commissioner under Order XVI Rule 9 C.P.C. is merely to assist the Court by placing a report of such local investigation before the Court. Such report is not, in any way, binding on the Court whose power to arrive at its own conclusion, even at variance with such report, is in no way impeded by such report. It is settled law that an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to note down the physical features of the disputed property. Of course, an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to gather evidence or to prove the possession of a party. Who has purchased electric motor and who is paying the electricity bills have to be proved by adducing necessary evidence. But, whether there is a well or not and whether there exists an electric motor and is fixed to the well or not come within the purview of the physical features of a property. No prejudice will be caused to any party by simply noting the physical features of a property. Moreover, the same may help the Court in arriving at truth and deciding the matter judiciously. In the circumstances, it appears that the lower Court failed to distinguish between the issue of simply noting the physical features and gathering evidence. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.06.2010 is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.65 of 2009 in O.S.No.1200 of 2008 stands allowed. The lower Court is directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner only for the purpose of noting whether there exists well and electric motor or standing crop in the suit land or not. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J 17th June, 2011 GHN [1] AIR 1992 AP 300 [2] AIR 1986 Madras 33 [3] AIR 1970 Mysore 314