THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 732 of 2011 Oral order: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 14.02.2011 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy district, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 1153 of 2010 in O.S. No. 298 of 2008, filed by the petitioners praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, to conduct survey and find out whether the suit schedule property forms part and parcel of land in Sy. No. 8 or Sy. No.11 of Kapra village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, with the help of Surveyor and to note down the physical features of the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order under revision. As can be seen from the order under revision, the petitioners- plaintiffs, who filed the suit for injunction against the respondents- defendants, are claiming land in Sy. No. 8 of Kapra village, while the respondents-defendants are claiming plot Nos. 16 and 17 in Sy. No. 11 of Kapra village. As the land claimed by the petitioners-plaintiffs and the plots claimed by the respondents-defendants, are situated in different survey numbers, the Court below refused to appoint Advocate Commissioner, to conduct survey to ascertain whether the suit schedule property formed part of Sy. No. 8 or Sy. No.11 of Kapra village, because the land will be located in different layouts, and no interference is called for therewith by this Court, because if the request of the petitioners-plaintiffs to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct survey and note down the physical features of the property, is acceded to, then it would amount to collection of evidence on behalf of the petitioners-plaintiffs, even before their letting in evidence, which cannot be permitted. If there is dispute as to in which survey number, the land in question exists, then the petitioners-plaintiffs can very well approach the revenue authorities and get the survey done, but certainly they cannot take the assistance of the Court, for identification of their property. In that view of the matter, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of this Court in Mohammed Mahmood Ali v. Municipal Council, Suryapet[1], would not assist the petitioners-plaintiffs in any manner. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, 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. There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 8th April, 2011 IBL [1] 2008 (5) ALT 797