IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.420 OF 2010 BETWEEN B. Veera Raju …PETITIONER AND G. Srinivas. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner: MR. RAMACHANDRA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. MEHRCHAND NOORI The Court made the following: - ORDER: The defendant is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Court below rejecting his application being I.A.No.805 of 2009 in O.S.No.341 of 2008 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and measure the extents of his land and the respondent’s/plaintiff’s land and to note all other physical features of the plaint schedule property. 2. Heard both the learned counsel and by their consent at the interlocutory stage the revision petition itself is being disposed of. 3. The respondent herein filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction in which he had already laid evidence and the suit was coming up for defendant’s evidence. At that stage, the defendant filed the present application to measure the land of the respective parties and to note physical features through Advocate Commissioner. The Court below rejected the same on the ground that the Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to fish out evidence or for gathering evidence for one party. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner now states that the defendant’s evidence is now closed and they have already led the necessary evidence to non-suit the respondent/plaintiff. 5. On account of the pendency of this revision, the disposal of the suit appears to have been held up. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to persuade the Court for allowing the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner based upon the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in SALLE ESWARAMMA v. C. SUBBA REDDY [1] for the proposition that even in a suit for injunction, Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to make local inspection and note the physical features. 6. The facts of the case, as are necessary, for the purpose of the present revision petition show that the respondent herein filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that the suit schedule land is in his possession. The said suit is being contested by the petitioner-defendant on the basis of the purchase by him of a specific extent as claimed by him in the suit. It is also asserted that there exists a bund between the land of the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant, therefore, is disputing the specifications of the suit schedule property including its extent. As noted above, the petitioner has already laid evidence in the suit and now both sides having led evidence, the suit awaits disposal but for the pendency of this revision petition. Under the impugned order, the Court below rightly declined to appoint an Advocate Commissioner as no party can use the process of Advocate Commissioner for collecting evidence. The petitioner was given an opportunity to engage the services of a surveyor and get the measurements of the land, as he desired and place material before the Court but the said opportunity apparently is not availed. I am, therefore, unable to find any error warring correction by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court shall proceed to decide the suit on the basis of the evidence led by both sides, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 29, 2010 DSK [1] 2009 (2) ALD 160