HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2735 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioner filed O.S. No.5211 of 2006 in the Court of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for the reliefs of declaration, temporary injunction and mandatory injunction against the respondents. The trial of the suit commenced. Petitioner filed I.A. No.436 of 2010 under Order – XXVI Rule – 9 CPC, with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the fire safety measures undertaken by the respondents 1 and 2, and to note down the violations, if any, of the constructions vis-à-vis the sanctioned plan. The application was opposed by the respondents. By its order dated 10-06-2010, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. 2. Heard Smt. B. Neeraja S. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. 3. The suit was basically in respect of a lane. Petitioner claims it to be his exclusive property. Ancillary reliefs in the form of mandatory injunction to respondents 1 and 2 to remove a window and door as well as injunction against them from invading exclusive rights of the petitioner were also claimed. It is stated that the trial of the suit is in progress and one Advocate Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features in relation to the lane. 4. I.A. No.436 of 2010 is filed with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the fire safety measures undertaken in the construction as well as the violations thereof vis-à- vis the sanctioned plan. It is true that a prayer was made in the plaint to the effect that the respondents 1 and 2 be restrained from making any construction in violation of the sanctioned plan. If any violation is being resorted to, the same can be put to the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. It is only when the answer to such question is either vague and not to the satisfaction of the petitioner that an application can be filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner with reference to a specific item. A vague and general prayer for noting down the fire safety measures and the violations of the construction, does not go well with the purport of the suit. 5. It is true that the trial Court proceeded on the assumption that there is no prayer in respect of the building in the suit. All the same, the prayer in the I.A, in a way, is general and goes beyond the scope of the suit. Petitioner can certainly seek appointment of a Commissioner with reference to the specific violation vis-à-vis the sanctioned plan. 6. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of upholding the order under revision, but leaving it open to the petitioner to file an application with reference to any specific violation, after necessary information on that aspect has been elicited in the course of oral evidence. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J October 19, 2010. KTL