THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K. C. BHANU C.R.P.No.3890 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 03.07.2009 passed in I.A.No.428 of 2008 in O.S.No.138 of 2007 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner to measure the suit schedule property with the help of the Mandal Surveyor, was allowed. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed O.S.No.138 of 2007 for permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondent No.2 herein, who are defendants, not to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. For grant of injunction, the plaintiff has to satisfy three grounds, namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. The claim of the plaintiff is that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendants are trying to interfere with her possession over the suit schedule property. In such circumstances, appointment of advocate commissioner may not be necessary for making local inspection with the help of the Mandal Surveyor since it is not a suit for declaration of title basing upon title deeds nor the dispute is with regard to the boundaries. No doubt, the Court has power under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to appoint a commissioner to make local inspection for the purpose of deciding the issues involved in the suit for disposal. The purpose for which the appointment of the commissioner is sought, has not been specifically pleaded in the petition, except stating that to note down the physical features with reference to the documents and also with the help of the Mandal Surveyor. Nothing has been stated as to why such report is helpful in deciding the issues involved in the suit. Therefore, the trial Court exceeded its limits in appointing the commissioner. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order impugned. Since the suit is of the year 2007, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible subject to other part heard and old cases. No order as to costs. _____________ K.C.BHANU, J Date:04.03.2010. sj