THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4534 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner-plaintiff filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the order dated 24.06.2010 in I.A.No.1612 of 2009 in O.S.No.172 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, in dismissing the petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner. On a consideration of the material available on record, the Court below held that when the documentary evidence is available to prove the case, there is no need to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and dismissed the application. Hence, the revision. For convenience sake, Order XXVI Rule 9 is extracted below. “In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court:” On a reading of the above, it contemplates that the Court has to form an opinion for appointment of Advocate Commissioner on the basis of requisition and proper necessity. In the present case, as the documentary evidence is already available to prove the case, there is no necessity to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, which would be an unnecessary exercise. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned and there are no merits in the revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) 18th March 2011 RRB