IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6227 OF 2009 Between: Gunti Mandepalli Yellavva ..... PETITIONER AND Joginipally Anand Rao and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6227 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 08.12.2009, in I.A.No.281 of 2009 in O.S.No.25 of 2007, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, Karimnagar District, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner was dismissed on the ground that noting down of physical features of the suit land would not help the Court to decide the question of title of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/D2 contended that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of the land situated at S.No.106-A to an extent of Ac.1-00 gunta, out of total extent of Ac.49-03 guntas, and irrigating the land through lift irrigation pipe, by making “Madulu”; that respondent No.1 filed the main suit for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit land; and that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is necessary to note down the physical features of the suit land and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that no document is filed by the petitioner to show that the petitioner was having title in respect of the one acre which is allegedly included in the plaint schedule; and that noting down the physical features may not be necessary for deciding the title of the parties and therefore, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 4. Unless there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record, ordinarily this Court will not interfere with the findings of the trial Court, exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Unless the finding recorded by the trial Court is shown to be perverse, the same cannot be interfered with. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of Kerala High Court in Payani Achuthan v. Chamballikundu Harijan Fisheries Development Co-operative Society and others[1], wherein it is held thus: “I agree with the above view. The Court cannot prevent a party from adducing the best evidence, if such evidence can be gathered with the help of a Commissioner. Refusal of the request of the party to appoint a Commissioner under O.26, R.9, C.P.C. to make a local investigation in an appropriate case amounts to failure of exercise of jurisdiction vested in it. In this view of the matter, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained.” 6. No doubt the above decision shows that for gathering the best evidence with the help of Commissioner, a Commissioner can be appointed. The Commissioner cannot be appointed when there is no dispute with regard to physical features of the property. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not filed any document to show her title over the property. Therefore, the question of appointing a Commissioner does not arise and the trial Court rightly dismissed the application. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 26, 2010 MD [1] AIR 1996 KERALA 276