THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2934 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20.06.2011 in I.A.No.130 of 2010 in O.S.No.9 of 2006, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Banswada, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit passage, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners filed the suit against the respondents for permanent injunction. The respondents filed written statement contesting the suit. After settlement of issues, the trial of the suit has commenced and both parties have led evidence. Earlier, the petitioners filed I.A.No.162 of 2008 for the same relief of appointment of Advocate Commissioner to make a local inspection under Order XXVI Rule 9 Code of Civil Procedure, and the said petition was dismissed on 20.09.2008 and the said order became final. Subsequently, the petitioners have come forward with the present application for the same relief. 4. A perusal of the order dated 20.09.2008 in I.A.No.162 of 2008 would disclose that the said application was filed for measuring the passage of 10 feet width East-West and 50 feet length, and to know if there was any encroachment thereon by way of construction by the respondents. The said application was opposed on the ground that the appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the purpose prayed for would amount to collection of evidence, and there is no road as contended. The said order also shows that the respondents constructed a house after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat and the petitioners filed an appeal before the District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad and by order dated 06.10.2006, the District Panchayat Officer also held that there was no encroachment by the respondents on to the road. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the existence or otherwise of the suit passage is a matter for evidence and appointment of an Advocate Commissioner would amount to collection of evidence, which is not permissible. The petitioners have not challenged the said order in I.A.No.162 of 2008 by way of any revision and, therefore, the said order has become final. The present application I.A.No.130 of 2010 is filed once again for the same relief of measuring the width of the passage at various points. When already the said relief prayed for by the petitioners was rejected in I.A.No.162 of 2008, a second application seeking the self-same relief, though couched in a different language, is not maintainable. It is obvious that, after evidence is adduced on both sides, the present application is filed only with a view to fill the lacuna, if any, in the evidence, which is impermissible, as the appointment of Advocate Commissioner cannot be sought for gathering of evidence. The impugned order, dismissing the application, therefore, does not call for interference of this Court. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 19th October, 2011 KSM