THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2832 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 21.06.2010, in I.A.No.102 of 2010 in R.C.No.203 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the upper floors and rear side portion of the suit mulgi No.3- 1-112, situated at General Bazar, Secunderabad, for proper adjudication of the matter, was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no dispute about the identity of the property in dispute and therefore, the question of appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the mulgi in question is nothing but to collect the evidence and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the building is classified as residential premises by competent authority and therefore, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is very much essential to note down the physical features of the rear side and upper floors of the mulgi in question; that the trial Court rightly allowed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4. Evidence was let in and arguments of both sides have been completed. At that stage, the respondents herein filed the present petition to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the upper floors and rear side portion of the mulgi in question, which are not at all in dispute. There cannot be any dispute that when there is any dispute with regard to the subject matter of the suit, then certainly a Commissioner can be appointed to note down the physical features of the property. There is no dispute with regard to the physical features of the suit property in question. There cannot be any dispute that a Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect the evidence. If there is any dispute with regard to the residential and non- residential building of the rear side and upper floors of the mulgi, that has to be proved by letting evidence. Whether the premises in question i.e., rear side and upper portion of the mulgi, are residential or non- residential cannot be decided and determined by a Commissioner, in view of the fact that it is not the property in dispute. Therefore, the question of appointing an Advocate Commissioner does not arise. These aspects have been completely overlooked by the trial Court and exceeded its jurisdiction by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of some other mulgi, which is not the subject matter in the petition. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 21.06.2010, in I.A.No.102 of 2010 in R.C.No.203 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad and leaving open all the remedies available to the respondents herein under law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J October 05, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2832 OF 2010 Between: M/s. R.R. Dass Jewellers & Pearls Dealer and another ..... PETITIONERS AND K. Nageshwar Rao and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2832 OF 2010 October 05, 2010