THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1383 OF 2011 ORDER : The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.130 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, Rangareddy District. The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed the suit for declaration of title and rectification of the sale deed bearing No.596/93 as well as for perpetual injunction. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.807 of 2010 under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to survey the Petition A & B Schedule lands with the help of the Mandal Surveyor. Though the defendants/revision petitioners opposed, the Court below by order dated 28.01.2011 allowed the application and appointed an Advocate-commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the impugned order is impermissible under law since the plaintiffs are not in physical possession of the schedule property and that the appointment of the Commissioner would virtually amount to collecting evidence in favour of the plaintiffs. Having carefully gone through the material available on record, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. As could be seen from the order under Revision, the Advocate-commissioner has been appointed for the limited purpose of inspecting the land in Sy.No.11/D and noting the physical features. The law is well-settled that appointment of a Commissioner for local inspection is permissible if in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the Court comes to a conclusion that such local inspection is necessary for obtaining evidence which from its peculiar nature can only be had by local inspection. In the light of the reasons assigned in the order under Revision, this Court is satisfied that the Court below had rightly exercised the discretion conferred under law in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, the interference by this Court is not warranted and accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 12.07.2011 RRB