THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 651 of 2011 DATE: 29.10.2011 BETWEEN: Jasti Muneesha and ors petitioner And Jasti Rajesh and ors respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr Ganta Rama Rao Counsel for the respondent: The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 651 of 2011 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed questioning the order and decree dated 24.1.2011 passed in I.A. No. 247 of 2009 in O.S. No. 289 of 2005 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur district. The revision petitioners are plaintiffs. They have filed a suit in O.S No. 289 of 2005 for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction. In the said suit they have filed an application in I A No. 247 of 2009 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. In fact, the Court below by order dated 4.6.2009 appointed Mr. U.Srinivasa Rao as an Advocate Commissioner to measure and demarcate the properties of both sides basing on their documents of title with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor and since the said Advocate Commissioner could not execute the warrant in spite of granting sufficient time, by order dated 2.12.2010 Mr.C.Kesava Rao was appointed as Advocate Commissioner with a direction to the petitioner to pay the Advocate Commissioner’s fee within three days and also to pay the required fee charged by the Mandal Surveyor for measuring the property. Though, the petitioner has not paid the fee, the Advocate Commissioner filed his report in the Court. While so, the petitioner took an objection that the Advocate Commissioner has filed the report without measuring the subject property by securing the presence of Mandal Surveyor and filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 (1) of CPC to reopen the Commissioner petition in I.A. No. 247 of 2009 and thereby direct the Advocate Commissioner to file his report. The Court below on consideration of the matter, by order dated 24.1.2011 closed the application in I A No. 247 of 2009 observing that both sides have already adduced their evidence and the matter is coming up for arguments since 2.8.2010 and being adjourned for want of filing of Advocate Commissioner report and petitioner having not paid the fee of the Advocate Commissioner and that of the Mandal Surveyor, cannot blame the Advocate Commissioner for execution of warrant without the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and perused the material available on record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that appointment of Advocate Commissioner by order dated 4.6.2009 under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC itself is unjustified inasmuch as it amounts to gathering of evidence, which is not permissible. The parties have to prove their respective averments by adducing evidence and the same cannot be delegated to the Advocate Commissioner. Further, in the present case, both the sides have adduced their evidence and suit is coming up for arguments since 2.8.2010, therefore, the question of redirecting the Advocate Commissioner to measure the subject property with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor does not arise. There are no merits in the revision and the same is hereby dismissed. ______________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 29.10.2011 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 651 of 2011 DATE:29.10.2011