THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2045 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.155 of 2007 in the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa against the respondents/defendants for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial of the suit commenced. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 3 were examined. At that stage, the respondents filed I.A.No.79 of 2009 under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C., to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, to inspect the suit schedule property and to note down the physical features of the same, with the help of the documentary proof, to be produced by both the parties. The application was opposed by the petitioner herein. Through its order, dated 5.03.2009, the trial Court appointed the Advocate Commissioner. Hence this revision petition. Heard Sri Ragava Reddy learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.J. Veerareddy, learned Counsel for the respondents. It is for the petitioner herein, to prove her possession over the suit schedule property by adducing oral and documentary evidence. The respondents have to wait till the completion of evidence of the petitioner and adduce their evidence. Appointment of Advocate Commissioner, in a suit for perpetual injunction, even at the stage of trial, amounts to a step for gathering evidence. In the instant case, the specific prayer made by the respondents is to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for inspection of the suit schedule property and to record a finding on the basis of the documents that may be submitted by them. This is totally out side the scope of suit. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. If the Commissioner has submitted report, the same shall be eschewed from consideration. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 11th June, 2010 Js.