THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4197 of 2009 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.465 of 2008 in the Court of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa against the petitioner for the relief of perpetual injunction. Initially, an order of ad-interim injunction was granted in I.A.No.615 of 2008 and the I.A. was dismissed on 13.09.2008. The respondent filed I.A.No.35 of 2009 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the suit schedule property. It was alleged that the petitioner, who is a joint owner, is undertaking construction over the suit schedule property. The petitioner opposed the application. The trial Court allowed the I.A., though its order, dated 14.07.2009. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Jayaram Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. The suit filed by the respondent is for the relief of injunction simplicitor. It is, ultimately, for the respondent to establish her possession over the suit schedule property by adducing oral and documentary evidence. The appointment of a Commissioner in a suit of that nature, that too, before commencement of the trial is prone to be a step for gathering evidence. Even if it is a fact that the petitioner is making efforts to make construction in the suit schedule property, the respondent has to come forward with necessary application for proper relief. Appointment of a Commissioner is untenable at this stage. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. It is, however, left open to the respondent to file an application for necessary relief in accordance with law, if she feels any grievance. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:20.07.2010 kdl