IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENNTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3916 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Katam Mallareddy S/o. Mohan Reddy …. Revision Petitioner AND Katam Balreddy S/o. Bhommreddy …. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3916 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner - defendant against the order dated 06-08-2008 in I.A. No.184 of 2008 in I.A.No.246 of 2004 in O.S.No.91 of 2004 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad, whereunder and whereby the petition filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for measuring the total extent of land in survey No.68/A/1 and 68/A/2 and to note down the existing status and ascertain whether there is any pathway existing at the house of the petitioner / defendant to go to the land of the plaintiff, was dismissed on the ground that the relief of appointment of Advocate Commissioner as prayed for by the petitioner is not maintainable and he could renew the plea in the suit itself. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that when there is a boundary dispute that has to be ascertained by appointment of an Advocate Commissioner; and that the report that may be filed by the Advocate Commissioner is a part of the record; that, the extents of the property as well as the boundaries can be resolved by appointment of the Advocate Commissioner. Therefore he prays to set aside the same. 3. He relied upon a decision reported in D. VIDYASAGAR RAO AND ANOTHER v. K. INDIRA DEVI AND OTHERS[1], wherein it was held in paragraph-22 as follows: “…......... As the Courts cannot adjudicate boundary disputes by making physical inspection, which are in the realm of technical bodies, this Court is not precluded from having their assistance for surveying the land to enable it come to a right conclusion. In the instant case inasmuch as there appears to be boundary disputes as both the petitioners and respondents are claiming to own land in the very same survey numbers, the Court below had appointed a Surveyor to locate and fix the boundaries, with reference to the plan, and no exception can be taken to such an order.” There is no dispute about the ratio laid down in the above decision, because when there is a serious dispute with regard to boundary, Court can appoint a Commissioner to locate and fix the boundaries. Therefore in such circumstances, to fix the correct the boundaries with reference to the plan, Advocate Commissioner can be appointed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon another decision reported in PAYANI ACHUTHAN v. CHAMBALLIKUNDU HARIJAN FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND OTHERS[2]. It is not known at what stage the appointment of Advocate Commissioner was ordered in the above mentioned decision. It appears that the order of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was made, considering the facts of the case that it was not possible to implement the order of injunction, if any, passed. Therefore, in those circumstances, Commissioner was appointed by the learned single Judge of Kerala High Court. 5. In the present case, there is no such exigency to appoint a commissioner immediately, to note down the physical features. There cannot be any dispute that for collection of evidence, the commissioner cannot be appointed. The specific plea that was been taken by the petitioner / defendant is that there is no pathway as claimed by the plaintiff. To Note down whether the pathway is in existence or not, is nothing but collection of evidence. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant on the ground that at the interlocutory stage, the Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed and liberty was given to the defendant to file appropriate application after adducing evidence. Therefore, the order of the Court below need not be interfered by this Court. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No Costs. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 10, 2009. KTL [1] 2004(2) ALD 426 [2] AIR 1996 KERALA 276.