THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2469 OF 2011 27.09.2011 Between: Tamalampudi Varalakshmi …Petitioner AND K.Ravayamma And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2469 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the plaintiff. She instituted suit being O.S.No.49 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the respondents from making further construction in the suit schedule property and further reliefs. She filed I.A.No.303 of 2011 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to localize the petition schedule property with the help of Mandal Surveyor and also to note down the physical features of the said property. The learned trial Judge dismissed the said application on 16.04.2011 observing that the question involved in the suit is with regard to the possession of property which will be decided basing on the evidence and there is no need to appoint Advocate Commissioner to localize the schedule property. This order is assailed in this civil revision petition. The counsel for the petitioner relies on the Judgment of this Court in Salla Eswaramma v C.Subba Reddy[1] and Pulipalpula Srinivas v Gangula Vasanta[2] and contends that even in a suit for injunction, the appointment of Advocate Commissioner to localize the suit schedule property is not barred. This Court in Arredla Ram Reddy v Arredla Alivelamma[3] and Penta Urmila v Karukola Kumaraswamy[4] has held that ordinarily in a suit for injunction, an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for collecting evidence. In such a suit, it is always for the plaintiff to prove his allegation that he has been in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the suit and by reason of threat of dispossessing him or interfering with the possession, likely to suffer legal injury. The two cases cited by the counsel for petitioner did not take a different view. In the peculiar facts of the two cases, this Court having come to the conclusion that the appointment of Advocate Commissioner is not purely for collection of evidence, interfered with the orders of the Courts below. In the present case, the petitioner who filed the suit for injunction sought appointment of Advocate Commissioner only to collect evidence. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 27.09.2011 Pln [1] 2009 (2) ALT 59 [2] 2011 (2) ALT 4 [3] 2004 (5) ALD 388 [4] 2005 (2) ALD 130