THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2018 of 2011 ORDER: The respondents filed O.S.No.272 of 2004 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur against the petitioner for the relief of injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. They have also filed I.A.No.1561 of 2004 with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. He submitted a report on 06.12.2004 depicting the suit schedule property graphically and through photographs. The petitioner filed I.A.No.593 of 2010 under Rule 9 of Order 26 C.P.C. with a prayer to appoint another Commissioner. According to him, the report submitted in I.A.No.1561 of 2004 is incomplete and it is not helpful to the Court at all. It is stated that the report does not state as to in which survey number the land is situated and unless that aspect is clear, adjudication may not be effective. The application was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 27.04.2011. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in a suit for perpetual injunction itself is an extraordinary step. Even where the appointment of Commissioner is otherwise feasible, the second Commissioner cannot be appointed, unless the report submitted by the first Commissioner is set aside or the defects in the first report are pointed out by the Court itself. Further, in a suit for injunction, it is always for the plaintiff to prove his case, be it as to possession or the identity of the property. The reason for the petitioner to seek appointment of the Commissioner is that there is serious discrepancy as to the location of the land with reference to the survey numbers. Even if that is true, necessary information can be elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses that may be examined by the respondents or by examining the independent witnesses on behalf of the petitioner himself. The order under revision cannot be found fault with. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to elicit necessary information as to the location and identity of the property in the course of trial. It shall also be open to the petitioner to adduce further evidence by filing an appropriate application before the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:07.09.2011 kdl