THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 4523 of 2010 Dated: 29.10.2010 Between: M.Narayana Swamy, Anthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Ananthapur and 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 4523 of 2010 ORDER: The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.NO.90 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram. The suit is filed for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Pending the suit, the plaintiff/revision petitioner filed I.A.No.315 of 2010 under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of noting the cultivation and other physical features of the suit schedule property. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 16.08.2010 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under revision. The law is well settled that the appointment of Commissioner is impermissible for collecting evidence in favour of one of the parties to the suit. No case could be made out by the petitioner to show that the material/information sought to be obtained by the Advocate Commissioner is of peculiar nature, which can be had only by local inspection. It is also relevant to note that he petitioner himself stated in his affidavit that by appointing the Advocate Commissioner much oral evidence could be avoided at the time of trial. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 29.10.2010 KLP