THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R. P. Nos. 2636, 2686, 2721, 2803, 2941, 2965, 2966 & 2967 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Respondent No.1 in the respective revisions (for short ‘the respondents) filed suits in the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District against the respective petitioners for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are plots of land, in a layout approved by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority carved out of Survey Nos.87 and 119 of Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal. The petitioners also own plots in a layout approved by HUDA and are located in the neighbouring Survey Nos.104/1 and 106/1 of the same Village. The petitioners filed applications under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate and localize the lands in Survey Nos.87 and 119 on the one hand and those in Survey Nos.104/1 and 106/1 on the other. It was mentioned that though the respective layouts are as regards the land in two different sets of survey numbers, the respondents started claiming that their plots are in Survey Nos.104/1 and 106/1. The applications were opposed by the respondents. Through similar, but separate orders, dated 05.10.2009, the trial Court dismissed the applications. Hence, these revisions. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf the petitioners submits that the effort of the petitioners in filing the applications is not at all, to gather evidence or to localize the suit schedule properties. He contends that an exercise of demarcation of the survey numbers, would go a long way, in assisting the Court to record a finding as to whether the respective respondents are in possession of the suit schedule properties. He submits that the trial Court had dismissed the applications without appreciating the scope and the spirit of Order 26 C.P.C. Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that even from a perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioners, it is evident that the lands in Survey Nos.104/1 and 106/1 have already been demarcated by Survey and Land Records Department and if they are so advised, they can make such proceedings, as part of the record, if it is otherwise permissible in law. He contends that the appointment of Commissioner in a suit for injunction, that too at the instance of the defendants, and before commencement of the trial, is opposed to law laid down by this Court. As observed earlier, the suits are filed for the relief of injunction, simplicitor. The respondents claim rights in respect of the plots carved out of Survey Nos.87 and 119 and the petitioners on the other hand, state that the plots purchased by them are in Survey Nos.104/1 and 106/1 of the same Village. Ultimately, it is for the respondents to prove their possession over the plots. If there exists any difficulty as to location, it is once again for them to take necessary steps in that direction. Time and again, this Court held that in a suit for injunction, appointment of a Commissioner that too before commencement of the trial is untenable. Reference in this context may be made to the judgment in Dammalapati Satyanarayana Vs. Datla Venkata Ramabhdra Raju[1]. It is not in dispute that the trial in the present suits is yet to commence. The feasibility or necessity, for appointment of a Commissioner may arise, at the most, in case the trial Court or the parties feel it after the trial progresses to a substantial extent and it is noticed that the uncertainty exists. The trial Court has undertaken discussion with reference to the relevant provisions of law and precedents, and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. It is, however, made clear that in case the parties or the trial Court come to the conclusion that there is any overlapping of the property claimed by them against each other after the trial progresses, the feasibility of appointment of a Commissioner can certainly be considered. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:17.08.2010. kdl [1] 2006(4) ALD 675