THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 2292 of 2008 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 13.02.2008, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, allowing the application in I.A. No. 4362 of 2007 in O.S. No. 1838 of 2006, filed by respondent No.1, praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to locate the suit schedule property with the assistance of Surveyor. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1 submitted that even though the petitioner-defendant No.1 and respondent No.1- plaintiff claim to have purchased the suit schedule property from their predecessors-in-title with the very same boundaries, but since the sale deed of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner-defendant No.1 is much prior to the sale deed of the predecessor-in-title of respondent No.1-plaintiff, he contends that respondent No.1-plaintiff had no title to the property, and therefore, according to him, there was no necessity to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to localize the suit schedule property. He further submitted that the property of respondent No.1- plaintiff is not identifiable as there is no rough sketch plan annexed to the sale deed and as no supplementary setwar is also given in respect of the land in Sy. Nos. 23/5 and 24/5, appointment of Advocate Commissioner, to localize the land, would be an exercise in futility, and hence, prayed that the order under revision, passed by the Court below, allowing the application filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to localize the suit schedule property, be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1- plaintiff submitted that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner- defendant No.1 had sold the land without any roads, but the petitioner- defendant No.1 taking advantage of her absence and the wrong mentioning of the boundaries (typographical errors) in the sale deeds, has encroached the land belonging to respondent No.1-plaintiff, and laid roads therein. The fact that the petitioner-defendant No.1 has encroached the land of respondent No.1-plaintiff became clear when respondent No.1-plaintiff got a survey conducted of the land in Sy. Nos. 23/5 and 24/5 after giving notices to all the occupiers and also the neighbouring land owners. Hence, in such circumstances, he contended that the Court below, by reason of the order under revision, has rightly allowed the application filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to localize the land, and as such, no interference is called for therewith, and prayed that the C.R.P. be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff and perused the order under revision. The predecessors-in-title of both the petitioner-defendant No.1 and respondent No.1-plaintiff are protected tenants. Respondent No.1-plaintiff, admittedly, has filed suit for declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and petitioner-defendant No.1 be directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property, to grant mandatory injunction for removal of structures and perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any third party interests in the land. While it is the case of respondent No.1-plaintiff that the petitioner-defendant No.1 taking advantage of her absence and wrong mentioning of boundaries in the sale deed, has encroached her land and also laid roads therein, while it is the case of the petitioner-defendatn No.1 that there does not exist any land of respondent No.1-plaintiff and that in the absence of any sketch plan annexed to the sale deed of respondent No.1-plaintiff, the land is not identifiable, and therefore, there is no necessity to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to localize the land. As can be seen from the material placed before this Court, the suit is at post-written statement stage. The parties have not adduced any evidence. Considering the nature of suit filed by respondent No.1- plaintiff, wherein he is seeking the reliefs of declaration/injunction/delivery of possession against the petitioner- defendant, and having regard to the nature of dispute involved, I am of the considered opinion that the parties, should first place evidence in support of their respective cases, and if after adduction of evidence, it is felt that the evidence placed is insufficient to resolve the dispute involved effectively, then either of the parties can seek appointment of Advocate Commissioner, for localizing the land. However, even before the parties adducing evidence, much less respondent No.1-plaintiff in support of his case, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below committed an error in allowing the application filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to localize the lands and fix the boundaries, for it amounted to permitting the Advocate Commissioner, to collect evidence for respondent No.1-plaintiff, which is not permissible under law. Hence, the order passed by the Court below, which is impugned in this C.R.P. is set aside and the C.R.P. is allowed. However, respondent No.1-plaintiff is at liberty to file fresh application, if after adducing evidence, he feels that the evidence placed is insufficient to resolve the dispute involved in the suit. No costs. __________________ N.V. RAMANA, J Dated: September, 2009 KSR