THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2730 of 2009 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.2679 of 2008, in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, against the petitioners, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property, comprising of a Three-storied building. He has also filed I.A.No.5445 of 2008, under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C., with a prayer to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner, to take custody of the Will from a bank locker, and I.A.No.5446 of 2008 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., for temporary injunction. Through separate orders, dated 01.06.2009, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.5446 of 2008 and allowed I.A.No.5445 of 2008. Hence, this revision. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the scope of the suit is very limited and there was absolutely no basis for the respondent to file the application under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C., that too, with a prayer to open the locker. He contends that even to establish the incidental title, the respondent cannot take the assistance of the Court. Learned counsel submits that, when the appointment of Commissioner, even to make local inspection, is basically untenable, in a suit for perpetual injunction, there was absolutely no basis for the trial Court in appointing the Commissioner for collection of evidence, to prove the title of the respondent. Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that late Mahalaxamma, the original owner of the property, executed the Will and put it in the locker. He contends that the production of the Will is essential to know, at least, prima facie, as to in whom, does the title vest. As observed earlier, the suit was filed for the relief of perpetual injunction. The principal question that arises for consideration in the suit would be, as to who among the parties were in possession of the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing of the suit. Title would only be referred to, as an incidental question. Even here, it is for the respondent to impress upon the Court, as to the existence of any title, or legal entitlement in the property. Time and again, this Court held that, appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner in a suit for perpetual injunction, is untenable. It is only during the course, or after the trial, and that too, if the Court finds that the evidence before it is not adequate, to enable it to arrive at a proper conclusion, that the feasibility of appointing a Commissioner can be considered. There again, necessary precautions must be taken to ensure that the appointment does not result in collection, or gathering of evidence. The application filed by the respondent is at the threshold of the suit, and with a prayer to direct the Commissioner to open the locker and to get possession of the Will. This step presupposes the existence of a right in the respondent to operate the locker, and his being sure about the presence of the Will in the locker. Even assuming that there is prima facie case, on these aspects, it is not at all the function of the Court to arrange for procurement of the Will. It is for the respondent to undertake that. As long as the suit is not for the relief of declaration of title, or for a relief enabling the respondent to procure the Will, I.A. is totally outside the scope of the suit. Hence, the C.R.P. is allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:16.09.2009. GJ