THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 750 of 2010 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 04.12.2009, passed by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 2227 of 2009 in O.S. No. 1571 of 2009, filed by the petitioner-plaintiff praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of and take photographs of the suit schedule property. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the respondent has taken a stand that there is an alternative pathway to the petitioner to his land, and the suit schedule property does not exist at all, it is but necessary that an Advocate Commissioner should be appointed to ascertain the existence of and note down the physical features and take the photographs of the suit schedule property (road), but the Court below committed a grave error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner holding that it would amount to permitting collection of evidence for the petitioner. In support of his argument that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if Advocate Commissioner is appointed to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Mallikarjuna Srinivasa Gupta v. Shesirekha[1]. He thus prayed that the order under revision be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision. The petitioner, admittedly, filed the suit for injunction restraining the respondent and his henchmen from interfering with the suit schedule property (road). The suit is at the threshold. The application filed by the petitioner earlier praying to grant temporary injunction was dismissed. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent has adduced any evidence, either oral or documentary, to show whether the suit schedule property (road) exists or not. The law is well settled that the plaintiff, who files injunction suit and claims injunction against the defendant, has to prove the existence of the property and he is in enjoyment and possession of the same as on the date of filing the suit, and has to succeed on his own merits. Merel6y because the respondent denied the existence of the suit schedule property, it does not mean that an Advocate Commissioner should not be appointed to ascertain the existence and note down the physical features and take photographs of the suit schedule property. If according to the petitioner, the suit schedule property does not exist, it is for him to prove the same by adducing evidence, and at any rate, even before the parties adducing evidence, Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed, for if the Advocate Commissioner, as requested by the petitioner, is appointed, it would amount to permitting the Advocate Commissioner to collect evidence for the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 25th June, 2010 KSR [1] 2006 (3) ALD 363