HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3040 of 2010 Date: 23rd November 2010 Between : Tellapati Krishnaiah & another. …….Petitioners And Mannem Gopal Reddy. ….Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3040 of 2010 ORDER : This civil revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed by the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.123 of 2010 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Guduru. The respondent-plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit for injunction simpliciter, to restrain the petitioner- defendants herein from interfering with his possession over the suit schedule property. He has also filed interlocutory application in I.A.No.383 of 2010, which is allowed by the impugned order, appointing one Sri C.Dayakar, Advocate, to inspect the suit schedule land and measure the entire extent of Ac.7.31 cents of land covered by Survey No.343-1A of Surayapalem village, with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, to determine the part of the land of Ac.1.49 cents with reference to the sale deed of the petitioner, dated 17.06.1989, and to fix up the boundaries thereon. In this revision, it is the case of petitioners that the Court below erred in appointing the Advocate- Commissioner to gather evidence. It is submitted that as much as the suit is for injunction simpliciter, by leading cogent evidence, the plaintiff can establish his possession through the registered sale deed, dated 17.06.1989. It is submitted that even before the trial is commenced, the Commissioner cannot be appointed to survey the entire land and determine the land being claimed by the plaintiff, to an extent of Ac.1.49 cents, and to fix the boundaries. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent that even in a suit for injunction simpliciter, Commissioner can be appointed. In support of his argument, reliance is placed on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jayalakshmi Constructions Vs. Nawab Behboob Ali Khan[1]. I have perused the copy of plaint filed in O.S.No.123 of 2010. In the plaint, it is the case of the respondent herein that he is in possession of the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.1.49 cents, covered by Sy.No.343-1A, by virtue of his purchase from its earlier owner one Damineni Ramaswamy Naidu, by way of registered sale deed, dated 17.06.1989. The suit is yet to be tried. The land covered by Survey No.343-1A, it appears, admeasures totally Ac.7.31 cents. The Court below, by passing the impugned order, directed the Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule land, measure the entire land with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor to determine the part of land of Ac.1.49 cents, which is the subject matter of suit, and fix up the boundaries. A reading of the said order clearly indicates that it goes beyond the scope of the suit and it amounts to gathering of evidence in favour of respondent-plaintiff to establish his possession. It is well settled that the Commissioner cannot be appointed to gather evidence. If the respondent-plaintiff has purchased Ac.1.49 cents of land by way of registered sale deed, and if he is in possession, he has to lead evidence to establish his possession during the trial, but even before any evidence is let in, the Commissioner cannot be appointed to survey the entire land covered by Sy.No.343-1A and demarcate the land, which is in the name of the respondent herein. Though the learned counsel for respondent has relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jayalakshmi Constructions (1 supra), but in the very same judgment, it is categorically held that the appointment of Commissioner is not permissible for collecting evidence. If the impugned order is allowed to stand, it amounts to collecting evidence. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd November 2010 ajr [1] 2006 (2) ALD 363