THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4091 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 28.06.2010, passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in E.A.No.195 of 2009 in E.P.No.17 of 2009 in O.S.No.791 of 2002, wherein and whereby the petition filed under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner to localize whether DEF plan marked 6 square yards of land with lavatory and septic tank is in existence or not, was dismissed. The petitioners herein are the defendants-judgment debtors. The respondents herein, who are the plaintiffs, filed the said suit for declaration of title over the suit schedule property. The said suit was dismissed. However, the counter-claim filed by the defendants in the said suit was allowed and the same had become final. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that even in the execution proceedings a Commissioner can be appointed and the executing Court erred to take note of the same and hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order. Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: - “In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any manner in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court.” From a reading of the same, it is clear that the Court is empowered or it is deemed that the power is conferred on the Court to form an opinion as to the necessity of appointing a Commissioner for making local investigation, if it is so required in order to resolve the controversy. In the instant case, the Court below dismissed the said E.A. on the ground that in the execution proceedings, the question of appointment of Commissioner does not arise in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in B.N.Narasappa V. Govindappa[1]. For the foregoing and in the facts and circumstances, the executing Court has rightly exercised its discretion in declining the plea of the petitioners for appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner. I do not find any illegality or infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the executing Court warranting interference by this Court and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED​ 17th September 2010 dr [1] 1992(1) ALT 48