IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2247 OF 2008 DATED:18.03.2011 Between: Sri Ommi Sanyasi Rao and another… Petitioners And Neelamma Auto Cycle Rickshaw Driver Samkshema Sangham Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Secretary Sri D.Devupalli Soma Sekhara Rao S/o. Adinarayana D. No.31-20-21/1, Visakhapatnam and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2247 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit in O.S. No.315 of 1999, on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, who suffered a decree against which the petitioners filed A.S. No.257 of 2006 on the file of the District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Pending the appeal, the petitioners filed I.A. No.179 of 2008 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features, number of residential houses and to find out the boundaries relating to the schedule mentioned property, contending that the suit schedule property is in possession of the members of the second petitioner society that the Government approved the list of members for construction of houses under WAMBAY scheme, that 15 electrical poles were erected and that there are 107 residential houses and two bore wells in the schedule property, in an extent of Ac.2.38 cents in S.No.55/P of Chingadili Village and the respondent No.1 – Society is nothing to do with the suit schedule property. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents herein, before the lower appellate Court, opposing I.A. No.179 of 2008 stating that during the pendency of the suit before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, the petitioners herein filed a similar application in I.A. No.8 of 2004 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, for the very same purpose and the said I.A. was dismissed and another such application was also dismissed. Therefore, I.A. No.179 of 2008 is not maintainable. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that in a matter of this nature an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed only to note down the physical features existing in the suit schedule property without gathering any evidence. The boundaries of the suit schedule property also cannot be mentioned by the Advocate Commissioner. The scope of the Advocate Commissioner before passing the decree and after passing a preliminary decree in the suit for partition and rendition of accounts etc., is altogether different. Therefore, in my opinion, the application – I.A. No.179 filed by the petitioners herein before the Court below for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features, number of residential houses and to find out the boundaries relating to the schedule mentioned property, is nothing but amounts to collection of evidence and therefore the Court below rightly dismissed the said application. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if so advised, the petitioners may file an application before the Court below for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner only to note down the physical features of the schedule property involving the controversy. No costs. _______________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J 18.3.2011 bnr