THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4288 OF 2009 Dated 23rd July, 2010 Between: Jupalle Ramudu …Petitioner And Shaik Basheer …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Somakonda Reddy Counsel for the respondent: Sri M.Radha Krishna The Court made the following ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 08.05.2009 in I.A.No.208 of 2009 in O.S.No.55 of 2009 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur. The petitioner is plaintiff No.1. He along with three others filed the abovementioned suit against the respondent for permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with the suit schedule site, which is described as a “RR public rastha”. Along with the suit, the petitioner and other plaintiffs filed I.A.No.208 of 2009 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for noting down the physical features of the property. This application was resisted by the respondent by filing a counter-affidavit. The Court below, after considering the pleadings and the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, rejected the application. I have heard Sri K.Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M.Radha Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. In his affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner alleged that the respondent has encroached into the public rastha, dug up foundations and constructed a wall and that in order to note down the existing features, it is necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The Court below held that a perusal of the plaint plan does not warrant visit of an Advocate Commissioner as in the said plan, it is shown that the respondent has encroached into the site at the beginning of the street. In my opinion, having regard to the plaint sketch submitted by the petitioner, there was no necessity for him to get an Advocate Commissioner appointed unless the respondent has disputed the plaint sketch. Curiously, the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner was filed by the petitioner along with the plaint itself. In my opinion, unless the Court, after considering the rival pleadings of the parties, formed an opinion that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is necessary, the parties cannot file the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner as a matter of course in order to create evidence in support of their respective pleas. As rightly opined by the Court below, the pleadings raised by the petitioner do not warrant appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the Court below in rejecting the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, CRPMP No.5866 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd July, 2010 vrn