THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2776 of 2011 Dated 09th September, 2011 Between: Kukkadapu Venkateshwarlu …Petitioner And Kandikanti Nagaiah and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Raja Sekhar Counsel for respondents: Sri V.Venugopala Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 21.06.2011, in I.A.No.338 of 2011, in O.S.No.239 of 2010, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit filed for permanent injunction against the respondents in respect of Acs.3.00 of land. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have been causing interference with the suit schedule property. In the written statement filed by the respondents, they have pleaded that they have inherited Ac.0.06 guntas of land, which is classified as poot kharab land and that they are in possession of the same without interfering with the suit schedule property of the petitioner. The respondents have filed the I.A., referred to above, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure the lands in dispute and also the land of the brother of the petitioner with the help of the Mandal Surveyor. This application was resisted by the petitioner by filing counter affidavit. The Court below allowed the application. At the hearing, Sri P.Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court below has not given any reasons for allowing the application. He further submitted that the petitioner being the plaintiff has to prove his case and that it is not necessary for the respondents, who are only defendants, to get an Advocate Commissioner appointed for measuring not only the suit schedule property but also the lands of the his client’s brother. Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, sought to support the order of the Court below. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel with reference to the material on record. In the written statement filed by the respondents, they have taken the plea that they are in possession of Ac.0.06 guntas of poot kharab land and that they have not encroached any part of the plaint scheduled property of Acs.3.00. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., they have stated that the said poot kharab property is abutting the southern side of the suit schedule property and that in order to avoid future litigation, it is necessary to measure the said land and that of the brother of the petitioner by the Advocate Commissioner with the aid of a Mandal Surveyor. Ordinarily, an Advocate Commissioner will not be appointed for the purpose of creating evidence. In the instant case, the dispute centres around whether the respondents have been trying to interfere with the plaint schedule property of the petitioner. Generally, it is the plaintiff, who makes applications for measuring the land and noting down the physical features, as it is his duty to establish his claim as plaintiff. In my opinion, appointment of Advocate Commissioner to know the physical features would be advantageous to the petitioner to establish his case, if the same is genuine. Such being the situation, I do not find any reason for the petitioner to oppose the request of the respondents for measuring and noting down the physical features. In this view of the matter, I do not find any material illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the Court below in appointing the Advocate Commissioner for measuring the land and noting down the physical features with the aid of the Mandal Surveyor. For the above-mentioned reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, interim order, dated 05.08.2011, shall stand vacated and C.R.P.M.P.No.3968 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th September, 2011 VGB