THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.448 of 2011 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.202 of 2010 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni against the petitioners for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. It is said to be a house site. The petitioners on the one hand, and the respondent on the other, claim that the site has been assigned to them by the Government. The petitioners filed I.A.No.970 of 2010 with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to localise the suit schedule property. The application was opposed by the respondent and the trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 03.11.2010. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard Sri K.Sitaram, learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit filed for the relief of injunction simplicitor by the respondent is almost at the threshold. The burden is upon the respondent to prove that she is in possession of the property that is mentioned in the schedule. The petitioners would have every opportunity to contradict the version of the respondent. It is only when the petitioners feel that the oral and documentary evidence that is adduced by the parties is not sufficient to enable the Court to come to a different conclusion, that the feasibility of appointing an Advocate Commissioner can be considered. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. on taking the correct view of the facts and law. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. It is, however, directed that if after the oral and documentary evidence is adduced, the petitioners feel that necessity exists for appointment of Commissioner, it shall be open to them to renew their request. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.02.2011 kdl