HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.R.P.No.2277 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 09.03.2011 in I.A.No.420 of 2009 in O.S.No.49 of 2008, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Order XXVI, Rule 9 and Section 151 C.P.C, to appoint Advocate Commissioner to fix up boundaries for the Sy.No.619/B to an extent of Ac.4.74 cents, with the help of the Deputy Inspector of Surveys, Adoni, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant, the respondents 1 to 5 herein are plaintiffs and the respondents herein are defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the petition in the lower court. 3. The petitioner filed the application stating that he had applied before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, for conducting survey of his land in Sy.No.619/B admeasuring Ac.4.74 cts., by Deputy Inspector of Survey as there was a boundary dispute and also with regard to the demarcation of land. In pursuance of his application, the 2nd defendant/District Collector issued survey notices to the neighbouring land owners as well as the plaintiffs by fixing the date of survey of the land on 9.5.2008, meanwhile the plaintiffs filed the suit against him and Deputy Inspector of Survey not to measure the land in Sy.No.619/B. 4. The respondents 1 and 6/plaintiff No.1 and 3rd defendant filed separate counters denying the allegations made in the affidavit and stated that the petitioner does not possess the specific land with existing boundaries and in the absence of particulars in the petition, the petition is not maintainable and therefore, the same may be dismissed. 5. On considering the rival contentions, the trial court opined that the appointment of the Commissioner amounts to collection of evidence and dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present Revision Petition is filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner requested the Revenue Divisional Officer to measure the land and when the date is fixed by the surveyor, the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.49 of 2008 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur, for grant of permanent injunction and hence he prays to set aside the impugned order. 7. None appears for the respondents 1 to 4 inspite of service of notices. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Arbitration contended that they would conduct the survey if a direction is given by this Court. 9. The suit is for the relief of permanent injunction. The fact remains that the petitioner has applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, for conducting survey of his land situated in Sy.No.619/B, admeasuring Ac.4.74 cts., by the Deputy Inspector of Survey as there was a boundary dispute and also with regard to the demarcation of land. In pursuance of his application, the 2nd defendant issued survey notices to the neighbouring land owners as well as the plaintiffs by fixing the date of survey of the land on 9.5.2008, and in the meanwhile the plaintiffs filed a suit. No doubt, no injunction was granted by the trial court. If the land is surveyed, the boundary dispute will be settled once for all. Therefore, the trial court ought to have appointed Advocate Commissioner to survey the land with the help of the Deputy Inspector of Survey, so that the true facts would be come out. Further, it does not amount to collection of evidence because the Commissioner would not collect the evidence. At best, the Commissioner can survey the land and note down the physical features of the petition schedule property for the purpose of just decision in the suit. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 09.03.2011 in I.A.No.420 of 2009 in O.S.No.49 of 2008, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur, and the petition filed by the petitioner before the trial court is allowed and the trial court is directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, to conduct the survey of the petition schedule property, with the help of the Deputy Inspector of Survey and file his report. The trial court is also directed to fix the fee of the Advocate Commissioner. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU,J. 29.10.2011, Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.R.P.No.2277 of 2011 Date:29.10.2011 Gk.