THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1673 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2010 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.1168 of 2009 in O.S.No.1374 of 2004. According to the petitioner/defendant, the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property claiming that it is located in Survey No.222 of Madinaguda Village and he is the owner and possessor of the same. It is stated that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit based on fabricated and fraudulent documents and that under the guise of the same he is trying to encroach over the piece of land in Survey No.69 of Miyapur Village. As per the lay out the extent and location of Plot No.3 is totally in variance from what is being sought to be projected by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit. It is also stated that earlier the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.2100 of 2004 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for demarcation of land in Survey No.222 of Madinaguda Village. When the said petition was pending, the suit was dismissed for default, consequent to which, the said I.A. was also dismissed. Thereafter, on filing application by the respondent/plaintiff, the suit was restored to its file. However, the petitioner was under the impression that the said Interlocutory Application was also restored along with the main suit, but it was not restored. Therefore, he filed the present I.A seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for demarcation of land in Survey No.222 of Madinaguda Village and to localize the suit property with the help of Government Surveyor and Survey Records and to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. The respondent/plaintiff contested the matter by filing counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the application. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties and considering the entire material available on record, dismissed the Interlocutory Application holding that there are no grounds to allow the same, particularly, in a suit filed by the plaintiff. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that even though sufficient time was given to the petitioner/defendant, he did not adduce any evidence in the main suit to substantiate his claim and filed the present Interlocutory Application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. It is well settled that a Commissioner cannot be appointed to gather the evidence in favour of the party to note down the physical features of the property. Further, the suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff for perpetual injunction, and therefore, it is for him to prove that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the Court below has rightly dismissed the Interlocutory Application. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. N.V.RAMANA, J Date.16.06.2010 va