THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3384 of 2009 Dated:18.08.2009 Between: Smt.Pinninti Venkata Ramanamma. ….Petitioner And Sri Majeti Satyanarayana …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3384 of 2009 ORDER: The defendant in O.S.No.445 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, is the petitioner herein. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction. He filed I.A.No.1852 of 2006 for ad interim injunction. The Court granted status quo directing the petitioner not to make further construction. The respondent subsequently filed I.A.No.3392 of 2008 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to notice and trace the construction allegedly made by the defendant subsequent to the orders of status quo. The trial Court appointed the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the construction made by the defendant. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 26.06.2009, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. This Court ordered notice to the respondent. Though notice is taken out by the petitioner’s Counsel and is served on the respondent as per memo of proof of service (USR No.1158 of 2009), none appears for the respondent. This Court heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. It shows that after passing orders of status quo in I.A.No.1852 of 2006, the trial Court also appointed Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No.1853 of 2006, who inspected the property and filed a report. Again on the application moved by the respondent, Advocate Commissioner was appointed to notice the physical features of construction. In a suit for injunction the factum of encroachment, trespass or threat of trespass or encroachment are to be proved by the plaintiff, who complains of legal injury. The Court process cannot be used for collecting evidence by appointment of Advocate Commissioners. The position is well settled (See Arredla Ram Reddy v Arredla Alivelamma[1] and Penta Urmila v Karukola Kumaraswamy[2]). In view of the settled position of law, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The suit is of 2006, and therefore, trial Court is also directed to dispose of the suit itself as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 18.08.2009 vs [1] 2004(5) ALD 388 [2] 2005(2) ALD 130