IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P.NO.2370 OF 2010. Date:03-12-2010 Between:- Sunkari Sudarshan and others .. Petitioners And Akuthota Prameela and another .. Respondents ORDER:- This Revision is directed against the order dated 01-04- 2010 made in I.A.No.99 of 2010 in O.S.No.986 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal whereby the petition under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. to appoint an Advocate Commissioner was dismissed. 2. The brief facts are that the respondents herein filed the said suit for perpetual injunction. When the suit was in progress, as stated supra, the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, filed the said application seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features as to whether the schedule property is as per the boundaries mentioned in the plaint or as per the sketch map enclosed. 3. Heard. 4. The report, which is to be submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, is only to assist the Court and such a report is not conclusive. Here, the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property and also to know as to whether the schedule property is situated within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint or as per the sketch map enclosed by the petitioners. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners are trying to collect evidence. 5. Accordingly, this Revision is allowed. The Order impugned in this Revision is hereby set aside. The Court below is hereby directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner only for the purpose of noting down the physical features and find out as to whether the plaint schedule property is located within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint or it is as per the sketch map enclosed by the petitioners herein. No costs. ____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 3rd December 2010 AMD