IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.3728 of 2009 Between: D.Anjaneya Prasad ..... PETITIONER AND K.Ramesh Babu .....RESPONDENT ORDER: The petitioner-plaintiff filed O.S.No.990 of 2008 seeking injunction simplicitor and also obtained ad interim injunction. At that stage, he filed I.A.No.479 of 2009 purportedly under Order XXVI Rule 9 Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. The trial Court after enquiry dismissed the application on 02.05.2009. This civil revision petition is against the said order. This Court, after hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, is convinced that the impugned order does not suffer from any error, much less, grave error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not lie. It is well settled that in a suit for mere perpetual injunction, normally a Commissioner to collect evidence not to be appointed. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived, and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:23.09.2009 VGB