THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4740 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.6 of 2002 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Koilakuntla against the petitioner for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of a lane. The suit was decreed. The petitioner filed A.S.No.13 of 2006 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. He has also filed an application for stay of the operation of the decree. The lower appellate Court passed an order on 06.06.2006 directing that the parties shall maintain status quo obtaining as on that date. The petitioner filed I.A.No.343 of 2010 under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features. He pleaded that though the rastha was in use, taking advantage of the orders of status quo, the respondent is preventing him from using it. According to him, an Advocate Commissioner would be in a position to note down the physical features of the rastha. The application was opposed by the respondent. The lower appellate Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 27.08.2010. Hence, this revision. Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the necessity to file the I.A. has arisen for the petitioner in view of the acts of the respondent in preventing the ingress and aggress to the rastha. He states that there is no prohibition in law for appointment of Commissioner at the appellate stage. The parties have already adduced oral and documentary evidence before the trial Court and the suit was decreed. The appointment of Commissioner sought for by the petitioner is not in the context of any finding that was recorded by the trial Court. It is only in relation to an order of status quo passed by the lower appellate Court, pending disposal of the appeal. If the respondent has violated the order of status quo, the petitioner has to initiate necessary steps in accordance with law. To prove his contention as to violation, he has to adduce oral or documentary evidence, if the situation warrants. It is only when such evidence is found not adequate, that the necessity to appoint an Advocate Commissioner would arise. The petitioner straightaway wanted the lower appellate Court to appoint the Commissioner. Such a course is impermissible in law. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner cannot be applied to the facts of the case. At any rate, the controversy in this regard can be put at rest by directing the lower appellate Court to dispose of the appeal itself. Therefore, the civil revision petition is disposed of, directing the lower appellate Court to dispose of A.S.No.13 of 2006 before 31.12.2010. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:10.11.2010 kdl