THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3642 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.575 of 2003 in the Court of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court), Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, against the respondent, for the relief of perpetual injunction. The trial of the suit commenced. Cross-examination of the petitioner was recorded, through an advocate, who was named for this purpose. The petitioner filed I.A.No.716 of 2008, under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C., with a prayer to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to visit the suit schedule property and to note the physical features. The trial Court dismissed the application, through order, dated 21.04.2009. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri G.Dhananjai, learned counsel for the petitioner. The only reason mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., is that the details that may be recorded by the Commissioner would serve as evidence, and would assist the Court. A Commissioner cannot be appointed on such a plea. The appointment of Commissioner in a suit for perpetual injunction itself is a rare phenomenon. It is only where specific case is pleaded warranting appointment of Commissioner that the request can be acceded to. Mere noting of physical features, that too, to serve as evidence, is opposed to the very concept of appointment of Commissioners. The trial Court took correct view of the matter. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, left open to the petitioner to file application by pleading necessary facts that may warrant the appointment of Commissioner. As and when such application is filed, the trial Court shall examine the same on its own merits. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:25.08.2009. GJ