THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 4623 of 2009 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 09.07.2009, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 2061 of 2008 in I.A. No. 1735 of 2008 in O.S. No. 1825 of 2008, filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1, praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, to identify the survey numbers 23, 24, 15, 16 and 17 of Allapur village, Balanagar Mandal, with the assistance of the Revenue Surveyor and record whether the respondents-plaintiffs are doing developing work, and if so, on the land located in which survey number. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision. Though the petitioner-defendant No.1 filed the present application praying to appoint of Advocate Commissioner to identify the survey numbers in question, the fact remains, in the affidavit filed in support of the application she categorically stated that at the time of handing over the lands to her, the same were surveyed and the boundaries also fixed as per the sale deeds and the question of resurvey and fixing the boundaries does not arise. This apart, the Court below upon perusing the record found that the Revenue authorities conducted survey and prepared panchanama in respect of the lands in Sy. Nos. 23, 24 and 25. The survey of the land having been conducted already, there is no necessity to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to identify the survey numbers in question. There can be no doubt that in order to resolve disputes between the parties, the Court can, depending upon the nature of suit, if necessary, can appoint an Advocate Commissioner, but such appointment cannot be made in a suit for injunction, at the threshold, before any evidence is led by the parties, and more so, when the law is well settled that in a suit for injunction, it is for the plaintiff to establish that he was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the disputed property as on the date of filing of the suit and that such possession was threatened to be dispossessed by the defendant. In the above view of the matter, 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. There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: November, 2009. KSR