THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 5767 of 2010 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 03.11.2010, passed by the Junior Civil judge, Parigi, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 305 of 2010 in O.S. No. 13 of 2004, filed by the petitioner-defendant No.2, praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, for making local inspection of the land in an extent of Acs. 2.00 in Sy. No. 39, Thimmaipally village, Doma Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and noting down its physical features and report as to whether it is agricultural land or covered by houses. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.2 and perused the order under revision. Admittedly, respondent No.1-plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2004 for perpetual injunction, restraining the petitioner and respondent No.2 from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Respondent No.1 claimed that the land is agricultural, while the case of the petitioner is that it is covered by houses. Since respondent No.1 claimed that the suit schedule property is agricultural and she is in possession and enjoyment thereof, it is for her to prove the same by adducing evidence. The petitioner, except stating that the land is not agricultural, has not assigned any reason why Advocate Commissioner should be appointed. If according to the petitioner, the suit schedule property is not agricultural, but is covered by houses, it is for her to prove the same by adducing necessary material. The petitioner, filed the present application after the evidence of the plaintiff is over, and while the matter is coming up for evidence of D.W.5, and if even before the evidence on her side is completed, she cannot seek appointment of Advocate Commissioner. However, if at this stage, the request of the petitioner to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection and noting down the physical features and ascertaining the nature of the land is acceded, it would amount to collection of evidence for the petitioner through Advocate Commissioner, which cannot be permitted. Hence, no fault can be found with order under revision, passed by the Court below, refusing to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: December, 2010 IBL