Judgment :- (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 26.09.2005 in I.A.No.373 of 2005 in I.A.No.1127 of 2002 in O.S.No.233 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari (Full Additional Charge by the II Additional District Munsif, Salem). Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order rejecting the prayer for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Civil Revision Petition are as follows :- (i) The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. According to him, he is the owner of the service connection No.1111, which is situated in Survey No.209/10 of Kaveripatti Agraharam Village, Sankari Taluk, hereinafter called the suit service connection. He had applied for service connection for a well and had obtained necessary certificate from the Village Administrative Officer, Koneripatti Village. The certificate and other particulars were submitted to the Electricity Board authorities for the purpose of obtaining service connection for the well situated in his land. The plaintiff is also the owner of the land situated in S.F.No.208 and R.S.No.108/1B of Koneripatti Village along with his brother, the fifth defendant in the suit. (ii) Electricity Board authorities are the defendants in the suit. They have effected service connection to the well on 14.05.2001. Subsequently, Electricity Board authorities issued notice to disconnect the service connection on the ground that the petitioner has obtained service connection to the well situated in R.S.No.209/10, by producing a false certificate from the Village Administrative Officer, Koneripatti Village. The petitioner/plaintiff submitted that he is an illiterate and the Village Administrative Officer, Koneripatti Village has wrongly issued a certificate and that while he was taking appropriate steps to rectify the mistake, the Electricity Board authorities issued a notice for disconnection of the service connection, which necessiated him to file a suit for mandatory injunction. (iii) The respondents/defendants have filed a written statement stating that the petitioner/plaintiff opted to get agricultural service connection under the revised self financing scheme and that he submitted the revenue records relating to R.S.No.208/1B of Koneripatti Village. After collecting the necessary charges, the Agriculture service connection was given to the well in R.S.No.208/1B of Koneripatti Village on 14.05.2001 in Service Connection No.1111. After collecting the necessary charges, the Agriculture service connection was given to the well in R.S.No.208/1B of Koneripatti Village on 14.05.2001 in Service Connection No.1111. On verification, it was found that there was no well at R.S.No.208/1B of Koneripatti Village and the well to which the service connection was effected is actually situated in R.S.No.209/10 of Kaveripatti Agraharam Village. It was further found that the plaintiff had obtained service connection by submitting false records. As per clause 28.01 (b) of the Terms and Conditions of supply of Electricity, the authorities can disconnect the service connection after giving notice and hence there is no illegality in their action. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. Pending disposal of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1127 of 2002 for ad-interim injunction restraining the Electricity Board Authorities from in any way dismantling the suit service connection and the Lower Court was pleased to grant ad-interim injunction. When the injunction application was posted for hearing, the plaintiff filed a petition for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to locate the suit well by measuring S.F.Nos.208/1B and 209/10 and for filing the report of the Advocate Commissioner. The said application was resisted by the Electricity Board authorities on the ground that all the Revenue records relating to the location of the area, boundaries, location of well are very much available and that the petition for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner has been filed only to protract the proceedings. The Court below considered the pleadings, records and found that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is not required for adjudication of the dispute. Aggrieved against this order, the Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute cannot be decided only on the basis of oral evidence, because the electricity service connection has been actually effected in a well situated in R.S.No.209/10 at Kavertipatti Agraharam Village, whereas the application seeking service connection and the records available with the respondents show that the service connection has been effected in a well situated in R.S.No.208/1B of Koneripatti Village. Learned counsel further contended that since the properties are situated adjacent to each other in two different villages, the Village Administrative Officer, Koneripatti Village had issued a certificate by mistake as if the well is situated in R.S.No.208/1B and if the property is measured by an Advocate Commissioner, it would elucidate the bonafide mistake committed by the Village Administrative Officer. For the fault of the Village Administrative Officer, the plaintiff should not be put to prejudice and that as per Order 26 Rule 9, a local investigation is a requisite for the purpose of elucidating the above matter. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in this Revision Petition. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that it is an admitted fact that the well is situated only in R.S.No.209/10 and the service connection has been effected to R.S.No.208/1B. The Village Administrative officer, who issued the certificate clarified that the certificate has been corrected by some other Officer and not by him. In that context, disciplinary action has been taken against those who were responsible for effecting the service connection. Learned counsel submitted that since all the records are already available, it is not necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. 6. The Lower Court considered that the revenue records like FMB, 'A'' register of R.S.No.208/1B of Koneripatti Village and R.S.No.209/10 of Kaveripatti Village are already available. The location of the well has been already admitted by the plaintiff and in that event, there is no doubt about the identity. 7. The object of the local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 is not to collect evidence. Such materials enable the Court to properly and correctly understand and assess the evidence on record, which clarifies or explains any point, which is doubtful on the evidence on record. The Court shall not appoint an Advocate Commissioner for taking measurement of the suit properties in a mechanical manner without considering the need for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. If the Court deems fit that local investigation is requisite or proper, for the purpose of elucidating the matter in dispute, then the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is justified. If there is any doubt about the area of the land, identification or location of an object, then local investigation is necessary. If the Court deems fit that local investigation is requisite or proper, for the purpose of elucidating the matter in dispute, then the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is justified. If there is any doubt about the area of the land, identification or location of an object, then local investigation is necessary. In the instant case, there is absolutely no doubt about the location of the well in R.S.No.209/10 and that therefore, there is no necessity for measurement. 8. The Lower Court has properly considered the materials on record and found that there is no need to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. There is no error in the said order warranting interference. In the result, the order of the Lower Court is confirmed and the Civil Revision Petition fails and stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.17460 of 2005 is closed.