THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.4164 OF 2010 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The respondents herein filed the suit in O.S.No.651/2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore seeking mandatory injunction to direct the 1st defendant in the suit to remove the wall, on the ground that the said wall was constructed unlawfully against the municipal plan. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs filed the present I.A.No.922/2009 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and to file his report with rough- sketch showing the discrepancies. By the impugned order dated 23.4.2010. The court below allowed the I.A. and thereby appointed an Advocate Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the 1st defendant in the suit. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to note down the physical features and to submit rough sketch showing the discrepancies and it amounts to collection of evidence and the court below has to decide the same based on the evidence to be made available. He submitted that the contention of the respondents is that the compound wall would obstruct the free flow of light and air to their property. He stated that the respondents/plaintiffs have not acquired easmentry right and hence their contention is not tenable. With these submissions, he sought to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs supporting the impugned order sought for dismissal of the revision. 5. The suit is filed for mandatory injunction for removing the compound wall constructed by the 1st defendant in the suit on the ground that the same was constructed in violation of the sanctioned municipal plan and that the further case of the plaintiffs is that the 1st defendant is going to raise her compound wall up to 25 feet and going to fill it up with earth and sand for raising roof-garden, which is going to obstruct light and air into the plaintiffs house and it may also cause damage to the compound wall of the petitioners on the eastern side. Considering these facts and circumstances, in order to note down the physical features and to submit report, the trial court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, appointed an Advocate Commissioner, for better appreciation of the case and to do complete justice and also taking into consideration that no prejudice would be caused to the 1st defendant and in my considered view, this would not amount to collection of evidence and on the other hand, it will assist the court in coming to the just conclusion based on the evidence available on record. The trial court also disposed of the interim injunction I.A.No.923/2009 dated 23.4.2010 filed by the plaintiffs for restraining the defendant no.1 from making construction, with a direction that if any construction made by the defendant is contrary to the plan and is causing damage to the property of the plaintiff, and that if the same is proved after trial, the 1st defendant shall remove the same on her own expenses. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, though it is well settled that appointment of an advocate in a suit for injunction is not as a matter of routine, having regard the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view, appointment of the Advocate Commissioner, cannot be interfered with. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. The revision is dismissed. No costs. AVS -------------------------------- 28 --12—2011