HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3249 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision is filed against the order dated 06.06.2011 passed in I.A.No.197 of 2011 in I.A.No. 169 of 2006 in A.S.No. 517 of 2001 by the IX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. Petitioner herein is the first appellant in A.S.No. 517 of 2001. He filed I.A.No. 169/2006 under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC alleging contempt on the part of the respondents on the ground that they have demolished certain portion of children’s prayer hall and converted the same into residential accommodation by constructing five rooms. A counter was filed denying the said allegations and taking the specific plea that the Sunday school building was in the custody of the Society and the photographs filed by the petitioners did not pertain to the suit property. For the said counter no reply was filed. I.A.No. 169 of 2006 was dismissed for default and the same was restored to file on 17.3.2011. After that petitioner herein filed I.A.No. 197 of 2011 under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to record the physical structures of the ground floor of Sunday School Building i.e., suit schedule property, and also to obtain photographs of the suit property. That I.A was dismissed by the court below stating that the burden of the petitioners to prove their allegations by their own evidence, but not by collecting evidence through Advocate Commissioner and hence, petitioner is not entitled for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and to obtain photographs of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing fore the petitioner submits that the Court below ought to have seen that the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner would have enabled the Court to do complete justice. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, the main allegation of the petitioner is that the respondents have damaged structures of suit schedule property and are still continuing their activities in violation of status quo orders dated 27.2.2004. But, the dates of such alleged damage said to have been caused by the respondents were not specifically pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. In the absence of such specific plea regarding the date of alleged damage said to have been caused by the respondents to the suit property, it is not open to the petitioner to seek relief of appointment of Advocate Commissioner. Hence, the court below rightly dismissed the I.A filed by the petitioner. I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the court below and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 23.12. 2011 KA