THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CRP NO.684 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 17- 7-2008 passed in IA No.424 of 2008 in OS No.396 of 2005 by the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Vishakapatnam District, dismissing the said IA filed under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC and Section 151 CPC to appoint advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features in the plaint schedule property. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants. Perused the impugned order passed by the Court below. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that some of the plaintiffs-respondents herein who were in possession of part of the site and the rest of the site in possession of the defendants-petitioners herein, on the death of one of the plaintiffs, have vacated the site and handed over the possession to the petitioners. That taking advantage of the same, the other plaintiffs are trying to alter the physical features of the site in question with a view to erect huts therein and having regard to these situations, the Court below ought to have allowed the application. 4. The suit is filed for permanent injunction and in a suit for injunction, possession by the party claiming injunction, as on the date of filing the suit over the suit property is the prima facie consideration to grant the relief subject to other evidence to be adduced during the course of trial. The allegation made by the petitioners that some of the plaintiffs have handed over possession of part of the site to them, yet taking advantage of the same the other plaintiffs are trying to alter the physical features are all disputed questions of fact which shall have to be decided after full fledged trial. That apart, appointment of advocate Commissioner is the discretion of the Court. Order 26, Rule 9 CPC reads thus: “9. Commissions to make local investigations---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.” 5. The rule of the above provision indicates that the Court has to form an opinion based on judicial reason and objective criterion. Mere filing of an application under the said rule does itself confer any right to seek for appointment of Commissioner as matter of routine. Because any routine exercise of jurisdictions by the Court may prejudice the case of the other side, which otherwise shall have be to demonstrated by adducing evidence. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The civil revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed, at the admission stage itself. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated 19-2-2010 NRg.