THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4691 OF 2011 18.11.2011 Between: Kanigiri Nooka Narsimha Rao …Petitioner AND Yagadasu …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4691 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.316 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni. The suit is for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule land admeasuring 22 square yards. His case is that an extent of 67 square yards is ancestral property; he has been in possession of the property for more than thirty years and that the defendant is claiming the suit schedule land by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 10.04.2006 having purchased the same from Suravarapu Subbalaxmi. The suit is pending trial. At this stage, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.309 of 2011 under Order XVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for appointment of advocate commissioner to measure his site. The application was opposed. While dismissing the application, the lower Court observed as under. As can be seen from the contentions of both the parties, the suit is filed by the petitioner for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit property. So, the petitioner has to prove his case by leading independent evidence, but the petitioner is seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner to measure his site as per his contention, which is not permissible under law, as the parties to the suit must prove their case independently. If the Advocate Commissioner is appointed as contended by the petitioner, it would amount to, nothing but collection of evidence as per his case. Since it is a settled principle of law that an advocate commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence, it is held that the present petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioner is claiming that he is the owner of land admeasuring 67 square yards and that the defendant encroached 22 square yards. The initial burden to prove this aspect is certainly on the plaintiff and while doing so, the appointment of advocate commissioner to measure the land would amount to gather evidence. Any such course of action would prejudice the case of the respondent. After perusing the order of the trial Court, this Court is convinced that the lower Court exercised sound discretion in dismissing the petitioner’s application. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 18.11.2011 Pln