HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.R.P.No. 3211 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is preferred by the defendants in the suit who moved I.A. No. 146 of 2010 seeking appointment of a Commissioner for conducting local inspection of lands situated in Sy.No. 80 admeasuring 16.33 gts. and in Sy.No.81 admeasuring Ac.14.12 gts. of Vaddadi village, Tamsi Revenue Mandal, Adilabad District for the purpose of noting down the physical features by exhibiting existing boundaries, existing canal and the extents within the boundaries. 2. The sole respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. He instituted the suit seeking the following relief: “Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass a Judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff as under: i) The Judgment and decree of perpetual injunction may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendants restraining their men, agents, relatives, successors in interest and representatives –in-interest from interfering with the peaceful possession of suit property i.e, land in Sy.No. 80/ to an extent of Ac.4.16 fts., bounded by : East: Remaining land in Sy.No. 80 of K.Deva Reddy West : Lands of Defendant 1 North: Village boundary of Nagapur South: Land in Sy.No. 81/ of plaintiff And land in Sy.No. 81/ to an extent of Ac.7.06 gts. Situated at Waddadi village, Tamsi Mandal, Dist. Adilabad bounded by : East: Remaining Land in Sy.No. 81 of K.Deva Reddy West : K.laxmi and Ramulu in Sy.No. 82 North: Land in Sy.No. 80/ of plaintiff South: Land in Burre Pochu Bai & Indoor Gangaram More particularly described in suit schedule. ii) and causing any sort of interference over the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. iii) That any other relief or reliefs under the circumstances of the suit may also be decreed in the interest of justice. iv) That the costs of the suit may be awarded. 3. The defendants as was already noticed supra, while taking out this Interlocutory Application, have pointed out that they are in possession of land of Ac.6.05 gts in Sy.Nos. 80 and 81 towards the western side of the plaintiff’s land since long back. Plaintiff is asserting that he is in peaceful possession of the land of an extent of Ac.4.16 gts in Sy.No. 80/ and land of an extent of Ac.7.06 gts. In Sy.No. 81/ of the same village. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is relatable to the land of an extent of Ac. 11.22 gts. situated in Sy.Nos. 80 and 81. While the claim of the defendants in the suit relates to their possession of land of an extent of Ac.6.05 gts. in Sy.Nos. 80 and 81, obviously, there was no overlapping in so far as the extent of these lands is concerned. If there is a common boundary dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants, it could easily be sorted out by a local inspection. Therefore, the defendants have taken out an Application under O-XXVI R-9 of C.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has resisted the case of the petitioners on the ground that there are no bonafides behind the Interlocutory Application moved by the petitioners herein, in as much as along with the suit for injunction an IA was also moved by the plaintiffs seeking ad-interim injunction and arguments were heard in the said application and just at about the time the said application was to be ordered, the defendants have moved the present application only for the purpose of dragging on the ad-interim injunction application. Further it is contended that the petitioners herein are seeking to collect evidence to establish their possession of land of an extent of Ac.6.05 gts in Sy.Nos. 80 and 81 and they have not produced not even a single paper to vouch for such a claim and therefore, this present application is only intended to supply evidence to the respondents and for that purpose, it is not entertainable. At any rate, procedes the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, that the defendants in the suit can solicit survey of their lands and fixation of the said boundaries thereof by approaching the revenue administration of the State, they can always lead such evidence on their side. Therefore, at this stage, there is no need to appoint any Commissioner. A further submission has been made that the petitioners are not very clear as to whether they seek appointment of an Advocate Commissioner or a Surveyor as Commissioner and they have vaguely left the matter and hence the court below is justified in dismissing the said interlocutory applications. 5. Rule 9 of O-XXVI of the Civil Procedure Code makes the position clear that in any suit if 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. 6. Appointing such a Commission should ultimately help the court in determining the disputed question with necessary clarity. For that purpose, the Commission can be taken out. It would help the court to resolve the controversy effectively and effortlessly. Instead of dismissing this interlocutory application, the court below ought to have appointed the Mandal Surveyor as a Commissioner for undertaking the inspection of lands situated in Sy.Nos. 80 and 81 of Vaddadi village, Tamsi Revenue Mandal, Adilabad District and file a detailed report as to the total extent of the land available in the said survey numbers with necessary sub division thereof and fixing boundaries of the sub division of the land thereof. That would have helped the court to decide the main controversy in the suit itself. Therefore, I consider it appropriate in the interest of justice, to allow this revision petition and direct appointment of Mandal Surveyor to undertake inspection of lands situated in Sy.Nos. 80 and 81 of Vaddadi village, Tamsi Revenue Mandal, Adilabad District for fixing the boundaries of the land existing in the said Survey numbers together with sub division of land contained therein and submit a detailed report within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt of this order to the court of Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad. The petitioners herein are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) with the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tamsi Revenue Mandal, Adilabad District within one week from today, to cover the necessary and incidental expenses that would be involved for undertaking the survey work by Mandal Surveyor. It is open to the Mandal Surveyor to utilize the services of any other person for completing this task. If more expenditure is incurred by him, it is open to him to submit a detailed report in that regard to the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad, which expenditure, the petitioners herein, shall ungrudgingly bear by depositing the same before the court. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Mandal Surveyor of Vaddadi village, Tamsi Revenue Mandal, Adilabad District. Failure to deposit of the sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) with the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tamsi Revenue Mandal, Adilabad District now or even later, depending upon the exigencies, will result in dismissal of I.A No. 146 of 2010 in I.A No. 282 of 2008 in OS No. 162 of 2008 automatically without any further reference to this court. No costs. __________ 27-08-2010 Note: CC by three days B/o Mjl/*