THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.4644 of 2007 ORDER: The respondents herein filed O.S.No.56 of 2002 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet, against the petitioner and five others, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. They pleaded that the suit schedule property is an open land and the defendants are trying to interfere with the possession. The petitioner filed a written statement, inter alia, stating that the houses are constructed over the suit schedule property and the relief of perpetual injunction cannot be granted. The trial of the suit is said to have been concluded. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.140 of 2007 under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, with a prayer to appoint a commissioner to make local investigation and note down the physical features with the help of Mandal Surveyor. In effect, he wanted the land also to be surveyed. The application was opposed by the respondents. Through its order, dated 26.06.2007, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this civil revision petition. Heard Sri A. Bitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents prayed for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. It is for them to prove the facts pleaded by them, including the one, relating to the possession of the property. The petitioner is arrayed as defendant No.2 in the suit. He filed the I.A. under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, for appointment of a commissioner for fixing boundaries and noting the physical features. Appointment of commissioner in a suit for injunction, even at the instance of the plaintiff, is a bit rare. In the instant case, the application was filed by the defendant. If the object of the petitioner is only to prove to the satisfaction of the Court, that there exist houses over the suit schedule property, the same can be done by adducing oral and documentary evidence. An appointment of a commissioner would lead to several complications and it is prone to be treated as a step to gather evidence. The petitioner can certainly adduce evidence, even at this stage. Hence, the civil revision petition is disposed of, upholding the order under revision, but leaving it open to the petitioner to adduce oral and documentary evidence to prove the existence of houses over the suit schedule property, as pleaded by him. The trial Court shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to take any steps, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and dispose of the suit, within two months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date: 11.08.2009 Note:Issue CC by Monday. (Bo) sj