THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.564 of 2010 Date: 19-02-2010 Between Smt. Bodavula Rama … Petitioner/Plaintiff and Kuchipudi Gopala Rao … Respondent/Defendant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.564 of 2010 Oral Order: Heard Sri G.Vivekanand, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This revision is directed against the docket order, dated 03-02-2010, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna district in allowing the application I.A.No.54 of 2010 filed by the defendant under Order XXVI, Rule 9 and Section 151 of CPC, for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner. 3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit before the trial Court. The suit is filed for permanent injunction. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for plaintiff that the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner in the present interlocutory application amounts to collecting the evidence and trying to gather information. 5. But, it is to be remembered that in a suit for permanent injunction, in the event an Advocate-Commissioner is appointed, the possession of the parties and other surrounding circumstances, the factual and various aspects may have to be gone into. 6. After all, appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner is subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court in the process of dispensation of justice and arriving at a just conclusion. When the trial Court had exercised such discretionary jurisdiction, unless and until it is palpably erroneous or arbitrary or irrational, this Court cannot interfere in such orders. Further, the report of an Advocate-Commissioner is not conclusive and such a report can always be subjected to cross-examination and further that, the trial Court can arrive at a totally different conclusion, despite the report filed by the Advocate-Commissioner, basing on the evidence, both oral and documentary, placed before it. 7. In view of the circumstances, I do not find any irrationality in the order passed by the trial Court. Further, I am of the view that it is inexpedient for this Court to interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction of the trial Court when the same is found to be judiciously exercised. 8. For the foregoing, I find no merit in the present revision. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the impugned order. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 19th February, 2010. Ak