THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.760 OF 2010 DATED: 13-08-2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 21-12-2009, in I.A.No.382 of 2009 in O.S.No.83 of 2002 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner for verification of the boundaries and to count the teak trees situate in the plaint schedule land, is dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondents though served with notices. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein-plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed, dated 20-09-2000, executed by him in favour of the 1st defendant is null and void on the ground that the said sale deed was obtained by coercion. Plaintiff alleges that the 1st defendant has in turn sold the plaint schedule land in favour of the 3rd defendant under the registered sale deed, dated 23-06-2002, wherein the number of teak trees situate in the schedule land was ‘10’ though there are nearly 400 teak trees situate in the plaint schedule land. Plaintiff therefore filed I.A.No.382 of 2009 seeking appointment of an advocate as Commissioner for verification of the boundaries and also to count the number of he teak trees situate on the plaint schedule land. 4. Learned Junior Civil Judge in the impugned order observed that there is no dispute regarding the boundaries of the schedule land and there is also no dispute regarding the number of the teak trees and the earlier dispute is only with regard to the execution of the sale deed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant. 5. According to the plaintiff, the said sale deed was obtained by D1 by exercising coercion. Plaintiff has therefore to establish, by giving necessary evidence, that the said sale deed is vitiated on account of the alleged coercion by the 1st defendant. The topographical features of the plaint schedule land are therefore not relevant for the purpose of determination of the real dispute between the parties. The number of teak trees existing on the schedule land is of no relevance for deciding the real dispute between the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no prejudice will be caused to the other side if a Commissioner is appointed. 7. The fact that no prejudice will be caused is no ground for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner when the facts in dispute and the issue to be decided do not call for appointment of any Advocate-Commissioner for making a local inspection. 8. The trial Court has rightly held that the appointment of the Commissioner for local inspection will not help the case of the petitioner in proving the facts in issue. The impugned order does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. There are absolutely no merits in the Civil Revision Petition. 9. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 13th August, 2010. Tsy