IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2661 OF 2011 Between: Bhashaboina Lingaiah …Petitioner A n d Kurra Bikshapathi ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2661 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.03.2011 in I.A.No.815 of 2010 in O.S.No.75 of 2001, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the defendant, under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent/plaintiff though served with notices. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement contesting the suit. After settlement of issues, the trial of the suit was commenced and evidence on both sides was completed. At that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.274 of 2011 seeking permission to file certain documents viz., certified copies of pahanies and adangals. The said application was allowed by the trial Court imposing costs of Rs.500/-. The petitioner/defendant filed C.R.P.No.2782 of 2011. By order dated 29.08.2011, the said civil revision petition was disposed of with liberty to the defendant to cross-examine the witness that may be examined by the plaintiff in connection with the documents. The present application is filed by the defendant seeking appointment of Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit land in Sy.No.758/A and the land held by the defendant in Sy.No.758/C by locating them with the help of a surveyor. The said application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff. By the impugned order dated 07.03.2011, the trial Court dismissed the said application, observing that the petition is belated and intended to protract the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred the present revision. 4. The suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule land which is situated in Sy.No.758/A. The suit was filed in the year 2001. After prolonged trial, recording of evidence has been completed. At this stage, the defendant filed the present application seeking appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the land and also locate the suit land. It is not disputed that the suit land is agricultural land. The topographical features of the suit land are not disputed. Appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for the purpose of noting down the physical features of the suit land is, therefore, unnecessary. The extent of the suit land and its boundaries are not disputed. According to the petitioner/defendant, he purchased Ac.0-32½ gts of land in Sy.No.758/C from the wife of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 03.10.2000 and the said extent is also shown within the boundaries mentioned in the suit land. The land said to have been purchased by the petitioner/defendant from the plaintiff’s wife in Sy.No.758/C is not subject matter of the suit. The evidence on both sides in support of their respective contentions is already placed on record. At this stage, after closure of the evidence, the appointment of a Commissioner for the purpose of localization of the suit land would only amount to gathering of evidence, which is not permissible. There is absolutely no reason or explanation as to why the petitioner has not sought any such appointment of Commissioner at any earlier point of time, though the suit has been pending since over ten years. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the present application filed at the stage when the evidence is concluded is intended only to protract the litigation. The fact that the plaintiff was permitted to file certain documents at the stage by virtue of the orders dated 29.08.2011 when C.R.P.No.2782 of 2011 is pending is no ground for appointment of a Commissioner for the purpose prayed for. As such, appointment of Commissioner would only amount to gathering of evidence. The impugned order, dismissing the application for appointment of Commissioner, does not, therefore, call for any interference. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th September 2011 Lrkm.