IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6031 of 2010 Between: Chilla Rajeswaramma and another ..... PETITIONERS AND Smt.Yarlagadda Vijayalakshmi .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6031 of 2010 O R D E R: Petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit O.S.657/2006 filed by the respondent herein on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. It appears that the respondent herein filed the said suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the said suit the petitioners herein filed an application in I.A.504/2010 under Or.26 Rule-9 CPC seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for the purpose of localising the suit schedule property by taking into consideration of the respective sale deeds and link documents of both the parties and to measure the same with the aid and assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, Gajuwaka and for report. It is stated that the subject matter of the suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.31/7 admeasuring Ac.0.46 cetns and the plaintiff filed the suit with a view to grab the said land. The plaintiff purchased an extent of Ac.280.22 sq.yards under the registered sale deed dated 19.08.1997 which is described in the plaint schedule property and hence the subject matter of the suit relates to the boundary dispute and though the property purchased by the plaintiff is in Sy.Nos.29/2, 29/3, 31/1, but she is trying to grab the land of the defendants in Sy.Nos.31/7 which is not part and parcel of the property claimed by the plaintiff. The property of the defendants in Sy.No.31/7 was the ancestral property and revenue records establish that the said property belongs to the father of the 1st defendant. I am of the opinion that it is for the plaintiff to prove and establish about the existence of the plaint schedule property within the specified boundaries said to have been situated in the Sy.Nos.29/2, 29/3, 31/1 and 31/6 but not in Sy.No.31/7. If the plaintiff establishes that the suit schedule property purchased by him is in Sy.No.31/7, it is always open for the defendants to adduce rebuttal evidence during course of the trial of the suit. But the defendants filed the said application for appointment of the Advocate-Commissioner to decide the controversy involved in the suit by taking measurements with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor after comparing the documents which cannot be allowed as it amounts to gathering evidence through the Advocate- Commissioner. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Court below rightly dismissed the said application. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioners/defendants to file such an application for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner only to make a local inspection for noting down the physical features. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 04.02.2011 Dsr