THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.809 OF 2007 ORDER: This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner/plaintiff, is directed against the order, dated 18.01.2007, passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in I.A.No.2043 of 2006 in O.S.No.1314 of 2006. In a suit filed for injunction, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.1762 of 2006 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with his possession, stating that he purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 10.10.1997, marked as Ex.P.1, from his vendor, who in turn purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 4.11.1992, marked as Ex.P.2, and since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The respondent has no right to interfere with the suit schedule property. Whereas the respondent/defendant contended that the vendor of the petitioner/plainitff has no right on Ex.P.1 since the family of the respondent owned an extent of 76 cents in S.No.228/12; 46 cents in S.No.247/1; and Ac.9.60 cents in S.No.248/2 of Suryaraopeta village in Kakinada. Along with the above properties, a part of the property was possessed by the respondent’s family members along with neighbouring land owners i.e., Pampana people, who got the land into house sites covered by layout plan No.100/92, marked as Ex.R.1. The respondent also filed I.A.No.2043 of 2006 under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for localizing the property purchased by the petitioner/plaintiff covered by Ex.P.1-layout plant. Since a combined layout was obtained by the respondent’s family for their land and a part of the land owned by Pampana people, the lower Court while granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner in I.A.No.1762 of 2006, observed that on the basis of Exs.P.1 and P.2 sale deeds it appears that the plaintiff is having a right over the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the petition. Since the respondent contended that a part of the plaint schedule property covered by S.Nos.228/12, 247/1 and 248/2 is belonging to his family and also Pampana people, and Ex.R.1 is pertaining to layout plan No.100/92 containing S.Nos.228/10P, 11P, 12P, 13P, 247/1 and 248/2 of Suryaraopet Village, whether the part of the plaint schedule property covered under Ex.R.1-layout plan does not fall under the land belongs to Pampana people or not has to be decided in the main suit, and for that purpose if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed to localize the property covered by S.Nos.228/12, 247/1, 248/2 and S.Nos.228/10, 228/11 and 228/13 of Suryaraopet village, no prejudice would be caused. In view of the observations made in I.A.No.1762 of 2006, while granting temporary injunction, I.A.No.2043 of 2006 was also allowed appointing an Advocate Commissioner to localize the property purchased by the plaintiff from the Pampana people in 228/12, 247/1, 248/2 and S.Nos.228/10, 228/11 and 228/13 of Suryaraopet village and to measure the same with reference to the layout plan owned by the respective parties. Since injunction itself is granted subject to appointment of Advocate Commissioner to localize the property, the petitioner, who availed the benefit of injunction, cannot object for appointment of a Commissioner. This Court in Jayalakshmi Constructions, Hyderabad v. Nawab Behboob Ali Khan[1] held that the Commissioner can be appointed to note down the physical features to draw the rough sketch and to take photographs if necessary and the same would not amount to collection of evidence in favour of the party. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the lower Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances as referred to above, does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 17th December, 2009 Js. [1] 2006 (2) ALD 363