THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.483 OF 2010 O R D E R Heard the counsel for the petitioner at the stage of admission. 2. The present revision is filed aggrieved by the order and decree dated 5.11.2009 passed by the court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.1105/2009 in O.S.No.728/2009 in dismissing the petition filed by the plaintiffs seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for inspecting the suit schedule property and to submit report. 3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction. By filing the present I.A., they sought for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and to submit report. Their case is that the they purchased the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale from Bandhuvula family who have valid right over the suit schedule property. The defendants in the suit have boundary dispute to an extent of Acs.30-00 cents out of Acs.123-43 cents with one Beekireddy Manjula and they filed suit in O.S.No.1479/2007 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore for permanent injunction and in the said suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the suit land and measure the land with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, Nellore. Their further case is that the present land is dry land and no cist and taxes were being collected by the revenue authorities. As the agreement of sale reflects the title and it follows possession, they filed agreement of sale and that for easy conclusion for adjudication of issues, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is necessary to inspect and measuring the land with the assistance of Mandal surveyor and submit report. 4. As per Section 75 of C.P.C. an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to examine any person; to make local investigation; to examine or adjust accounts; or to make a partition; to hold a scientific, technical, or expert investigation; to conduct sale of property, which is subject to speedy and natural decay and which is in the custody of the court pending the determination of the suit and; to perform any ministerial act . Inspection of the suit schedule property, is not enumerated under Section 75 of the Act. Further, no factual background or the circumstances warranting the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, are made out by the petitioners. There is no material to show what are the issues framed in the suit. In these circumstances, the court below rightly dismissed the I.D. and I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought liberty to file fresh application with necessary facts and circumstances. 6. No observation in this regard is required to be made and it is always open for the petitioner to file such applications in accordance with law. 7. The revision is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. AVS ----------------------------- 19—09—2011