IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINTH (9TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2996 of 2009 Between: M Bharathi Bai … Petitioner And: P Bharathi … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2996 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.03.2009 in IA No.243 of 2008 in OS No.813 of 2005 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy district, wherein, the said application filed by the petitioner herein- defendant under Order XXVI Rule 1 read with section 151 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and boundaries and also the extent of the suit property, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property. The petitioner herein-defendant filed written statement inter-alia contending that the suit agreement of sale is false and fabricated. She also contended that the boundaries and extents mentioned in the plaint schedule and also in the agreement of sale are not at all tallying. The defendant therefore filed petition IA No.243 of 2008 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property and also boundaries and extent, on the ground that there is a dispute regarding identity of the property. 4. The respondent filed counter opposing the application on the ground that the averments regarding the alleged variance between the boundaries and extent are vague and the petitioner cannot seek appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of gathering evidence. 5. As seen from the impugned order, the trial of the suit has already commenced and the plaintiff’s evidence was closed after examining PWs.1 to 3 and after marking Exs.A.1 to A.3. The defendant was also examined as DW.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marked. At that stage, the present application is filed. The suit is for specific performance of agreement of sale. The defendant is disputing the genuineness of the suit agreement of sale. The essential question that arises for consideration in this suit is regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the suit agreement of sale. According to the plaintiff, the suit is in respect of 150 sq. y. of site situated in Plot No.18 in Sy.Nos.307 and 308, Kakaktiyanagar, Neredmet. The defendant while disputing identity of the suit property alleges that the extent and boundaries as mentioned in the suit agreement in the plaint are not tallying with the suit property on the spot. The details of the alleged discrepancy regarding extent and boundaries have not been disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the application nor any prima-facie case made out for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to make local inspection. As rightly pointed, the vague averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application regarding non-tallying of the descriptive particulars of the suit land are not sufficient to make out a case for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. 6. It is well settled that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of making a local inspection with a view to gather evidence. The trial Court on proper appreciation of the contentions of the parties, rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for making local inspection and the same does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction as the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 09.06.2011 bss