THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.4327 and 4319 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Both the revisions are filed by the same petitioner. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioner filed O.S.No.373 of 2003 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri, against the respondent, for the relief of perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. He pleaded that the respondent is attempting to encroach into part of the property and that he encroached the passage. While the perpetual injunction is claimed in respect of the schedule property, mandatory injunction was claimed as regards the encroachment, which has already taken place over the rastha. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed A.S.No.5 of 2008 in the Court Senior Civil Judge, Gooty. In that appeal, he filed I.A.No.8 of 2009, under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C., with a prayer to appoint a Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property and I.A.No.9 of 2009, under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., with a prayer to take report of the Commissioner, as additional evidence. Through separate orders, dated 02.07.2009, the lower Appellate Court dismissed the applications. Hence, these revisions. Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner appears to have made an effort to get a Commissioner appointed by the trial Court itself. That effort, however, did not fructify. Basically in a suit for perpetual injunction, appointment of Commissioner is a rarity. Even as regards the relief of mandatory injunction, necessary facts have to be proved through oral and documentary evidence. It is only when the Court expresses its difficulty in coming to a definite conclusion as to the state of affairs obtaining on the suit schedule property that the feasibility of appointment of a Commissioner can be considered. The petitioner has already lost the suit. The application under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C., at that stage, would become a step enabling the petitioner to collect evidence. The application under Rule 27 of Order XLI C.P.C., is almost premature, since nothing was in the hands of the petitioner to place before the lower Appellate Court. The C.R.Ps. are accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that, in case, the lower Appellate Court feels that appointment of a Commissioner is necessary to resolve the controversy, it shall take necessary steps, in this regard. The appeal shall be disposed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:23.09.2009. GJ