THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5240 OF 2008 DATED:08.07.2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 14.10.2008, in I.A.No.1227 of 2008 in O.S.No.184 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein-defendant under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, seeking appointment of Commissioner for making local inspection for the purpose of vacating the suit plot, was allowed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant. Perused the records. 3. Petitioners herein filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, which comprised of three items i.e. item No.1, 600 sq.yards in Sy.No.132; item No.2, 1779 sq.yards in Sy.No.132/AA and item No.3, 941.11 sq.yards in Sy.No.132/AA situate in Kollur village, Medak District. 4. Respondent-defendant filed a written statement contesting the suit. Petitioners filed application for temporary injunction in pending suit and the respondent filed a counter thereto and the matter is coming up for enquiry. Meanwhile, respondent filed I.A.No.1227 of 2008 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for making local inspection of the suit land and identifying the suit plots. According to the respondent, there is a dispute regarding the identity of the suit land and the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint schedule and the same can be resolved only by demarcating the suit property. Respondent claims to be the owner of the adjacent land in Sy.No.142 and he categorically states that he has no interest in any portion of the land in Sy.No.132. Under the guise of claiming possession of land in Sy.No.132, petitioners-plaintiffs are extending over the land in Sy.No.142 also. 5. Learned Junior Civil Judge by the impugned order appointed an Advocate Commissioner observing that it is necessary to localize the suit land in Sy.No.132. It is to be noted that the plaintiffs are claiming to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit land in Sy.No.132 and the defendant has admittedly no land in Sy.No.142, which is adjacent to the suit land. The defendant is not claiming any possession of the suit land in Sy.No.132. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that the appointment of Commissioner, at the threshold stage, would amount to gathering evidence, which is not permissible. 7. It is well settled that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of determining who is in possession of the land or gathering evidence in support of either of the parties. In the present case, the appointment of Advocate Commissioner is sought for the purpose of localizing the boundary between Sy.No.132 and 142. The local inspection of the suit land by an Advocate Commissioner and his report, duly identifying the suit land with reference to its boundaries and localizing the same vis-à-vis Sy.No.142, would certainly assist the trial Court during adjudicating upon the boundary dispute between the parties in an effective and comprehensive manner and in resolving the dispute once and for all. It cannot therefore be said that the appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the said purpose would amount to gathering of evidence of either parties inasmuch as the Advocate Commissioner would not be competent to state as to who is in possession of which portion of the land. Under those circumstances, the impugned order, appointing Advocate Commissioner to make a local inspection of the suit land, identify the same and localize the boundaries with the assistance of a Mandal Surveyor after issuing notices to both sides, does not call for any interference. 8. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th July, 2011. Tsy