THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5137 of 2010. ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dt. 8.10.2010 of the II Additional District Judge, Kakinada rejecting I.A.No. 777 of 2010 in O.S.No. 1364 of 2005 wherein the revision petitioner is the defendant. The respondent herein filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Earlier, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No. 1197 of 2009 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to localise the suit property with the help of his sale deed dt. 20.9.1976; asserting that the suit schedule property comprises property of the revision petitioner as well. The I.A. was ordered and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to survey the property with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor. The Mandal Surveyor after proceeding to execute the warrant expressed his inability to measure the property as no measurements were set out in the revision petitioner’s sale deed dt. 20.9.1976. According to the revision petitioner, the Advocate Commissioner returned the warrant without executing the same, also since the Counsel for the plaintiff objected measurement of the property without documents pertaining to neighbouring lands In the above circumstances, the petitioner filed the present I.A.No. 777 of 2010 for re-entrustment of the function to Advocate Commissioner to localise and demarcate the property. This application was dismissed by the impugned order for the grounds recorded by the court below. The court below recorded three principal grounds for rejection of the application: a) that the earlier commission could not be executed in absence of the data regarding the boundaries of the neighbouring lands; b) that entrustment of a Commission successively is not warranted; and c) that the suit is of the year 2005 and needs to be disposed of as early as possible. The learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that none of these grounds are germane in the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the earlier Advocate Commissioner could not localise and demarcate the suit schedule property in the absence of relevant data, fresh warrant could be issued re-entrusting the function to the Advocate Commissioner since documents pertaining to neighbouring lands have now been furnished by the petitioner. It is also contended that the suit being of the year 2005 is an irrelevant reason to consideration whether an Advocate Commissioner should be appointed and that in view of the averments in the accompanying affidavit in I.A.No. 777 of 2010, there is no issue of appointment of successive Advocate Commissioners, the same Advocate Commissioner must be authorised to conduct survey since under the earlier warrant survey could not be conducted. Without going into the vitality of the reasons recorded by the court below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. It is the case of the petitioner who is the defendant in the suit that the suit schedule property includes his property as well under the sale deed dt. 20.9.1976, in which no measurements are set out. If it is the pleaded case of the petitioner that his property is included within the suit schedule property, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish for securing the declaration he seeks in the suit, that there is no ambiguity in identification of the schedule property. Once the plaintiff discharges that prima facie burden, burden will shift to the defendant (the petitioner herein) to marshal evidentiary material to displace the evidence marshalled by the plaintiff. Instead of proceeding to discharge the relative burdens in adversarial litigation, the parties to a litigation cannot seek appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to gather evidence for either of them; in this case the revision petitioner/defendant. For this reason, the prayer for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is misconceived and, I find no error in the ultimate conclusion recorded by the trial court in the impugned order dt. 8.10.2010. There are no merits in the revision petition and it is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 30.4.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5137 of 2010. ORDER: Dt. 30.4.2011.