THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.890 of 2011 Dated 29th July, 2011 Between: Gogikar Shyamlal and others …Petitioners And Bobbala Sudershan Reddy and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Ananth Nageswar Rao Counsel for respondents: Sri Ch.Ramesh Babu The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 22.02.2011, in I.A.No.553 of 2010 in O.S.No.247 of 2007, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the above-mentioned suit filed for recovery of 125 sq.yards of land from the respondents. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1336 of 2007 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure and demarcate the land in dispute. The said application was allowed and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. The Advocate Commissioner has filed his report, wherein he has inter alia stated that the eastern and western boundaries were not tallying with the boundaries furnished in the schedule of warrant of commission and as the Advocate for the respondents objected for taking the measurements of the suit land, he could not take those measurements. He has also stated that the owners of eastern boundaries were not present at the spot at the time of inspection. Thereafter, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1065 of 2008, which was dismissed by the Court below by order, dated 24.04.2009. In the said order, the Court below while rightly observing that it is the bounden duty of the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, to prove their case with reference to the evidence adduced by them and therefore in the absence of any such evidence in support of their plea, Advocate Commissioner once again cannot be directed to inspect the suit schedule property accordingly dismissed the IA, however, with liberty to the petitioners to take steps for appointment of Advocate Commissioner after the evidence from their side is introduced. As though taking the cue from the liberty left to the petitioners by the lower Court, they have filed I.A.No.553 of 2010 after the commencement of trial. This application having been dismissed, the petitioners filed this civil revision petition. The Court below, while dismissing the application has observed that the petitioners have not filed any piece of document in support of their plea that the suit schedule property belongs to them. The lower Court has reminded itself of the settled legal position that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed only for collection of evidence and that the burden lies on the petitioners to prove their claim in the suit by placing evidence on record. In my opinion, the Court below has not committed any error in dismissing the application because the petitioners have failed to adduce any documentary evidence till now to prove their prima facie title. The law is well settled that the Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed just for the sake of collecting evidence. Even though the Court below in its order, dated 24.04.2009, has given liberty to the petitioners to move the Court for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner after commencement of the trial, the context in which such an observation was made is that on the date of disposal of I.A.No.1065 of 2008, the petitioners have not produced any evidence in support of their claim of title and that depending upon proof of such evidence during trial, the petitioners may come out with a fresh application. Admittedly, no such evidence has been adduced by the petitioners even during the examination of PW.1. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the order of the Court below and the civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.1272 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th July, 2011 VGB