THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 6200 of 2009 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 03.12.2009 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally at Miyapur, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 975 of 2009 in O.S. No. 296 of 2008 filed by the petitioner praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to make local inspection and note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision. The petitioner is the plaintiff while the respondents are the defendants. The petitioner filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents in respect of Plot No.111 in Sy. No. 106, admeasuring 300 Sq. yds. The respondents filed written statement. The petitioner and the respondents having examined their witnesses, the matter is coming up for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present application praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner contending that since defendant No.1 in his examination-in-chief stated that the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of 200 Sq. yds. of the suit property by constructing a compound wall and erecting a gate, it is necessary that an Advocate Commissioner should be appointed, to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. As both the parties have examined their witnesses and also marked documents in support of their respective cases and as the matter was coming up for arguments, the Court below in exercise of its discretion felt that at that it would not be proper at that belated stage, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, to make local inspection and note down they physical features of the suit schedule property, and more so when the suit filed by the petitioner was for perpetual injunction, and no exception can be taken thereto. Hence, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: February, 2010 KSR