The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.5634 of 2009 Order: Heard Sri Anandam, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.794 of 2009 aggrieved by Order, dated 23-10- 2009, passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A.No.2085 of 2009 in I.A.No.723 of 2009 filed therein. The respondent-plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for injunction simplicitor against the petitioners-defendants alleging that the petitioners-defendants are interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, he filed Interlocutory Application No.723 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) seeking temporary injunction and the trial Court, vide Order, dated 17th August, 2009, directed the parties therein to maintain status quo. Subsequently, when the said IA was coming up for hearing, the petitioners-defendants filed I.A.No.2085 of 2009 therein under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features and constructions made by the respondent-plaintiff on the ground that in spite of status quo order, the respondent-plaintiff is proceeding with the construction. The Court below dismissed the said application on 23rd October, 2009, by relying on a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in Sagi Vijaya Ramachandra Raju vs. Koppisetti Satyanarayana[1]. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners-defendants that inasmuch as the respondent- plaintiff proceeded with the construction by violating the status quo order, the petitioners-defendants, rightly, filed I.A.No.2085 of 2009 to inspect and report with regard to constructions made by the respondents. The learned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in Jayalakshmi Constructions, Hyderabad and another vs. Nawab Behboob Ali Khan and others[2] and contended that the reasons assigned by the Court below in the impugned order are erroneous. While it is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that he is in actual and physical possession of the suit schedule property, it is the case of the petitioners/defendants that they are in possession of the same. If the respondent- plaintiff has violated the order of status quo by proceeding with the construction, the petitioners-defendants ought to have filed an appropriate application under Order XXXIX Rule 2 (a) of the CPC seeking to punish him and to lead evidence therein to prove the alleged violation. When I.A.No.723 of 2009 was coming up for hearing, the petitioners-defendants cannot seek appointment of Commissioner as the same amounts to gathering of evidence as held by the Court below. I n Jayalakshmi Constructions (2 supra), the learned single Judge of this Court held that where the matter in dispute requires further elucidation, Commissioner can be appointed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC. But, the said judgment cannot be applied to the case on hand having regard to its facts and circumstances. In view of the reasons assigned by the Court below, I do not find any illegality in the impugned Order warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Dated 14th December, 2009 lur [1] 2009 (5) ALD 459 [2] 2006 (2) ALD 363