RTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.R.P.NO.6210 OF 2009 ORDER: This Revision has been preferred by the Plaintiff aggrieved by the Orders passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Mancherial, in I.A.No.594 of 2009. The Petitioner has instituted Suit O.S.No.786 of 2008, seeking perpetual injunction against the Defendants in the Suit from interfering, in any manner, with his peaceful possession of land of an extent of 180 square yards, situated in Survey No.269 of Mancherial Town. He also sought for an ex parte interim injunction by moving I.A.No.1202 of 2008. The temporary injunction was, in fact, granted on 10-02-2008 and the same was, subsequently, vacated, against which an Appeal (CMA) has been preferred and the same is still pending. However, with a view to protect his possession, he appears to have constructed a compound wall around the suit site, some time, during August 2009. It is alleged that the said compound wall has been damaged and demolished by the Defendants in the Suit. Hence, he moved I.A.No.594 of 2009 under Rule 9 of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for undertaking local inspection of the suit land and for recording its physical features. That Application was resisted. The learned Judge has found that in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.594 of 2009, the Plaintiff – Petitioner has averred that he has constructed the compound wall to protect the land prior to August 2009 and that on 17th and 18th August 2009, the Respondents have criminally trespassed into the suit land and damaged the said compound wall, causing a loss of Rs.40,000/- to him. Again, he, appears to have, reconstructed the compound wall on 29-09-2009 and the same was also damaged by the Respondents, causing a further loss of Rs.50,000/- and hence, he sought for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection. It is patently clear from the facts pleaded in the I.A. that the Plaintiff – Petitioner is seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for recording the developments, which have taken place during the pendency of the civil suit, such as, construction of compound wall by the Plaintiff – Petitioner and its demolition / damage by the Defendants – Respondents. Therefore, the Civil Court has opined, rightly in my opinion, that the relief in the I.A., is intended to gather evidence. Therefore, the attempt made by the Plaintiff – Petitioner in instituting I.A.No.594 of 2009, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, is not liable to be ordered. An Application under Rule 9 of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure can be maintained for purposes of noticing the facts, which are in existence as at the time of the institution of the Suit, but it shall not be used for the purpose of gathering evidence, particularly, with reference to the developments that have taken place during the course of the Suit. I, therefore, do not find any illegality or irregularity in the Order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial, in dismissing I.A.No.594 of 2009. The Revision Petition is dismissed, but however, without costs. It is needless to observe that the Trial Court shall consider the entire matter uninfluenced, in any manner, by any observations that are made in this Judgment. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 12th April 2009