THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.315 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.183 of 2008 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram against the respondents for the relief of declaration of his easementary rights over the suit schedule property, for perpetual injunction and for removal of certain obstructions. He has also filed I.A.No.226 of 2009 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and file a plan and report. The application was opposed by the respondents. Through its order, dated 26.11.2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit is filed for the relief of different categories. Ultimately, it is for the petitioner to prove each and every fact pleaded by him to the satisfaction of the Court. The trial of the suit is yet to commence. The appointment of a Commissioner, at this stage, is bound to be a step for gathering evidence. A facility created under C.P.C., which is intended to aid the Court in arriving at a proper conclusion and it cannot be permitted to become the one for gathering evidence. The trial Court has applied the correct principle of law and dismissed the application. It is not as if the petitioner is completely barred from filing an application of this nature. In case it emerges after the parties adduce evidence, that any aspect needs clarification or appraisal by an independent agency, such a course can certainly be adopted. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.03.2010. kdl