THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.4136 OF 2008 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2008 passed by the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Chirala in I.A.No.822 of 2008 in O.S.No.161 of 2008 in rejecting to appoint an Advocate Commissioner in the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26, Rule 9 of C.P.C., the present revision is filed. 3. From the material available on record, it could be seen that the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction. He field the present application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the schedule property. His claim is that he is possession and enjoyment of the property since more than 12 years and that the defendant is trying to interfere with his possession and that she placed some material on the suit schedule property and that some construction works were going on. The respondent/defendant denied the averments of the plaintiff and stated that her mother was given D.K.T patta for the house site over an extent an Acs.0-04 cents and after knowing the cancellation of possession certificate of the petitioner, he changed his plan and invested a story of constructing a house and since the suit for mere injunction, no commissioner can be appointed and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. The trial court holding that no commissioner can be appointed for collection of evidence in a suit for injunction, dismissed the I.A. and challenging the same, the present revision is filed. 5. The suit is filed for injunction simplicitor and the suit schedule property is a house site. The claim of the plaintiff is that he is in possession of the property for more than 12 years and that the defendant is interfering with his possession. It is too elementary to restate that in a suit for injunction, Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for collection of evidence and the parties have to prove their claim by leading evidence. Moreover, as per the submissions of both the counsel, the trial has not yet commenced and the threshold itself, the appointment of Commissioner, in the present facts and circumstances, is totally unwarranted and the trial court rightly dismissed the petition and I do not find any merit in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly the revision is dismissed. No costs. AVS ------------------------ 03—11--2009