IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4583 OF 2010 Between : M.Vengama Naidu and another ... PETITIONERS A N D M.Aruna Kumari …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4583 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the docket order, dated 29.06.2010, in I.A.No.394 of 2010 in O.S.No.108 of 2010 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C., for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the cultivation particulars of land and such other physical features, was dismissed on the ground that written statement was not filed in the suit. 2. Heard. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that there are two other suits which are pending between the same parties; that the petitioners/defendants did not dispute about the physical features of the schedule property which is one and the same in other suits; that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner does not arise when there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property, and hence, he pray to dismiss the revision. 4. When there is a dispute with regard to physical features or identity of property, then the commissioner can be appointed to note down the physical features. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is not specifically disputed about the physical features of plaint schedule property, under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C., that in any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, the Court may issue commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court. Therefore, the present petition appears to have been filed only to collect the evidence. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J NOVEMBER 29, 2010. YVL