THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.199 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.147 of 2006 against the petitioners in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, for the relief of perpetual injunction. He has also filed an interlocutory application under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C., and it appears that an order of temporary injunction was granted. The trial of the suit is in progress. The petitioners filed I.A.No.767 of 2009, under Order 26 Rule 9 and Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 151 C.P.C., to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, and direct him to inspect the suit locality and note the existing features of the property. The application was apposed by the respondent. Through its order dated 21-12-2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this C.R.P. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the respondent. On an earlier occasion, the petitioners filed I.A.No.641 of 2006 with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, to note the physical features. It was dismissed on the ground that the trial of the suit is yet to commence. In the recent past, the evidence of PW-1 was recorded. By making reference to some of the statements made by the respondent, in his evidence, the petitioners filed the present I.A. According to them, there is some uncertainty about the description of the property, and the ground situation. The consistent case of the petitioners was that the description of the property in the suit schedule property is not correct. Earlier attempt made by them to get an Advocate Commissioner appointed, did not fructify, on account of the fact that the trial of the suit was yet to commence. The suit has progressed to a substantial extent, thereafter. On their part, the petitioners did elicit certain information from PW-1, touching on the identity of the property. Obviously, to substantiate their contention, they wanted the Commissioner to be appointed. Inasmuch as the trial of the suit is in progress, the request of the petitioners cannot be rejected. The respondent would also have an opportunity to contradict the version of the petitioner and ultimately a clear and correct picture would be there, before the Court. Hence, the revision is allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.767 of 2009 shall stand allowed. The Trial Court shall appoint an Advocate Commissioner, after consulting both the parties. It is needless to mention that the petitioners and the respondent shall be entitled to submit their work memos to the Commissioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11-02-2010. KO