THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :2720 of 2010 BETWEEN: Sri Dabbiru Chakrapani, S/o. D. Narayanaswamy, Patnaik, R/o. D.No.51-12-20, Nakkavanipalem, Visakhapatnam-13. PETITIONER AND Sri Karri Mohana Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. late Veerabhadra Rao, R/o. D.No.38-30-246, 1st Floor, Plot No.2, Green Centre, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam-500 008. Counsel for Petitioner: Sri A. V. Sesha Sai Counsel for Respondent: N.A. The Court made the following order: ORDER: This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/plaintiff, is directed against the order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, in I.A.No.8 of 2010 in O.S.No.1134 of 2008, whereby the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C., for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule vacant site, was dismissed. The petitioner filed the above suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule vacant site. The respondent/defendant filed written statement contesting the suit and the matter was coming for trial. Earlier to the present suit, the defendant filed O.S.No.186 of 2008 for permanent injunction in respect of the very same schedule property before the Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, which was transferred to the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam as per the orders of the learned District Judge. At that stage the petitioner filed the present application to appoint Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features etc. The respondent filed counter resisting the application. The trial Court held that if an advocate commissioner was appointed at this stage, it would amount to gathering of evidence which is not permissible under law, and therefore, the application is not maintainable, and dismissed the application. Hence the present revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C., reads as under. “Commissions to make local investigation: - In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court. Provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules.” A perusal of the above provision clearly demonstrate that the Court can appoint an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, if it deems fit. But in the present case, the application is filed seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property, which amounts to nothing but gathering of evidence. Therefore, the trial Court rightly refused to appoint the Advocate Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that discretion has to be exercised judiciously. In my considered opinion, the trial Court has exercised the discretion judiciously. Hence, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from making any application at appropriate stage. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) 16th July, 2010 Js.