THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1108 of 2009 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.72 of 2006 in the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Jude, Kurnool, against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4, for declaration of title, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction. The petitioner, on the other hand, appears to have filed a written statement opposing the suit as well as a counter- claim for declaration of his own right vis-à-vis the property. He filed I.A.No.1032 of 2008 for appointment of a Commissioner for noting down the physical features of the suit schedule property. According to him, the suit is filed for recovery of possession in respect of the vacant land, whereas he constructed the house much prior to the institution of the suit. The application was opposed by the 1st respondent. Through order, dated 17.02.2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.M.Bhaskara Laxmi, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent filed the comprehensive suit claiming the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction. According to her, the suit schedule property is a vacant land. The petitioner, on the other hand, pleaded that he purchased the property from one of the respondents and constructed a house. It is for the purpose of noting down the existence of the house that the I.A. was filed. The 1st respondent took the plea that, despite the injunction granted by the trial Court, the petitioner constructed a house. When there exists such a serious dispute, the parties have to establish their respective cases through evidence. The petitioner cannot be permitted to collect the evidence by appointment of a commissioner. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.16.03.2011. GJ