THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3151 of 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.06.2011 passed in I.A. No. 512 of 2011 in O.S. No. 264 of 2009 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners herein, defendants in the suit, praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. Heard the counsel for the petitioners-defendants and the counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and perused the order under revision and other material available on record. The suit is filed by the respondent herein for grant of permanent injunction against the petitioners herein. The evidence on the side of the respondent-plaintiff is completed. After three witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners-defendants and when the suit is coming up for further evidence on their behalf, the petitioners- defendants filed the present application, contending that the boundaries of the property mentioned in the plaint schedule are not correct, that the respondent-plaintiff is never in possession of the suit schedule property and they have leased out the suit schedule property to one Abdul Rashid and Ghouse Bhasha, who are doing iron scrap and gunny bags business on their behalf in the property, and hence prayed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. The respondent- plaintiff resisted the petition, by filing counter. The trial Court, having considered the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the petition by the order under revision. The suit having been filed by the respondent-plaintiff for permanent injunction, it is for the respondent-plaintiff to establish his possession of the suit schedule property, by adducing necessary evidence. If according to the petitioners-defendants, incorrect boundaries are mentioned in the plaint schedule and the property is leased out by them and the lessees are in possession of the same and doing scrap business on their behalf, they can prove the same by leading evidence, and they cannot seek appointment of advocate commissioner for that purpose. Appointment of advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the property would amount to collection of evidence on behalf of the petitioners- defendants, which is not permissible, particularly, when the evidence on the side of the respondent-plaintiff was completed and the suit is coming up for further evidence on the side of the petitioners- defendants, after examination of three witnesses on their behalf. The trial Court, having considered the same, has dismissed the petition of the petitioners-defendants by the order under revision, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J 21st October, 2011 IBL