THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.430 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 08.12.2009, passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.1844 of 2009 in O.S.No.111 of 2006. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit seeking perpetual injunction against the respondents in respect of the suit plot claiming that she is in possession and enjoyment of the same; and the suit is at the stage of arguments. While so, respondent Nos.1 to 6 i.e., defendant Nos.3 to 8, filed the present application under Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and boundaries of the suit schedule plot contending that since there is a dispute regarding existence of road between the Dhaba and the suit schedule property, it is necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The petitioner-plaintiff opposed the application by filling counter. The trial Court, having considered the material on record and having heard the learned counsel on either side, observed that the defendants have taken a specific plea in their written statement that the boundaries shown in the suit schedule are incorrect; and the plaintiff has not filed the sanctioned layout and also any photographs as to the location of the suit plot, it is necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and accordingly, through the impugned order, dated 08.12.2009, appointed one Sri K.Gal Reddy as Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and to take measurements of the boundaries of the suit plot. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. It is settled principle of law that when there is controversy as to the identification of the property and the local investigation is necessary for identification of the property, the Court can use its discretion to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, even after closure of the evidence. In the instant case, the suit is filed for perpetual injunction against the respondents-defendants in respect of the suit plot and the same is coming up for arguments. At that stage, the present application was filed by defendant Nos.3 to 8 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and the trial Court, while taking into consideration the fact that there is controversy as to the identification of the suit property, appointed Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and to take measurements of the boundaries of the suit plot. Further, under the impugned order, the trial Court has also directed the Advocate Commissioner so appointed to issue prior notice; and accept and answer the work memos, if any, to be submitted by both the parties. In the circumstances, I see no reasons to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:18.02.2010 VGB