THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5460 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 09.11.2010, in I.A.No.251 of 2010 in O.S.No.41 of 2009, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda, Anantapur District, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) to appoint Advocate- Commissioner to observe the physical features of the suit schedule property; respondents site bearing survey No.476-B/1; the constructions existing thereon and extent of encroachment into the suit schedule property by measuring the same with the help of Mandal Surveyor, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents denied about the construction of hut in the suit schedule site on the western side and running a hotel on southern side and also denied about the continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and hence, he prays to allow the revision petition. 3. There cannot be any dispute that under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C, 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, 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. 4. The schedule of the property is to an extent of Ac.0-01 cent in Survey No.475-A/4 from East to West - 90 links, North to South - 32 links, with boundaries East : Medara Narayanaswamy open space, West : Terubazar, North : Survey No.476, South : Guntakal – Uravakonda Road. The dimensions or physical features of the plaint schedule property is not denied or disputed in the written statement filed by the respondents. So, when there is no dispute about the identification of the property, the question of noting down the physical features or existence of constructions may not arise. For noting down the encroachments is nothing but for collection of evidence, which is not permissible. Furthermore, the affidavit filed in support of the petition does not disclose the grounds to appoint a Commissioner. On the other hand, it discloses the purpose of noting down the extent of encroachments. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in Chukka Venkatadri and another v. Mallavarapu Mahalakshmamma and others[1], wherein it is held thus: “I am of the considered opinion that it would be just and proper that a Commissioner may have to be appointed in this regard for the aforesaid purposes to locate the property so as to and to resolve this controversy conveniently and effectively with the assistance of a surveyor, if need be.” That is a case where earlier commissioner was unable to locate the property. So, when the location of the property is in dispute, the purpose of appointing Commissioner with the help of Surveyor is necessary for resolving the issue involved, but it is not the case here. The schedule as shown in the plaint has not been specifically disputed or denied by the respondents. The existence of physical features has nothing to do with the issues involved in the suit. Hence, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J December 07, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5460 OF 2010 Between: K. Suryanarayana .....PETITIONER AND B. Varalakshmi and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5460 OF 2010 December 07, 2010 [1] 2006 (3) ALD 87