THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4182 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 01.08.2011 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District in I.A.No.156 of 2011 in O.S.No.62 of 2010. The petitioners/defendants filed the above Interlocutory Application under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property to note down the physical features, location of the house of the plaintiff and defendants etc., and to take photographs. The Court below dismissed the said Interlocutory Application on the ground that the parties have to adduce their evidence in support of their respective contentions as to the possession. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the plaintiff is raising constructions in the suit schedule property even though she is not in possession of the same and that there was no structure of any kind in the site at any time and therefore, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the existence of the structures in the suit schedule property. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. There cannot be any dispute that under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C the Court can appoint a Commissioner to decide the dispute once for all. The suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property. There is no denial in the written statement with regard to the physical features of the suit schedule property. What all the petitioners stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition is that there are structures in the plaint schedule property and to note down the structures and to take photographs of the same, Advocate Commissioner has to be appointed. It is for the plaintiff to establish as to whether there are any structures or not and whether the plaintiff is in possession or not. For the purpose of collecting the evidence with regard to existence of any structures in the suit schedule property or to record a finding as to who is in the possession of property, Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed. Hence, the Court below rightly dismissed the Interlocutory Application. That order needs no interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. K.C. BHANU, J Date: 02.12.2011 va