ORDER 1. The petitioners are the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 427 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputtur. The aforesaid suit was preferred by the first respondent herein. 2. In O.S. No. 427 of 2005, the first respondent/plaintiff prayed for declaration that the plaintiff is the sole administrator of Kali Amman and Vinayagar Temple at Srivilliputtur. The declaration is sought against the revision petitioners/defendants. I am not concerned with the other portion of the prayer in the suit. 3. While so, the revision petitioners/defendants filed I.A. No. 63 of 2006 in O.S. No. 427 of 2005 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and the existence of Temple and its building and its nature and conditions by measuring the same and to submit a report with plan. 4. The first respondent resisted the application by filing the counter affidavit stating that taking into account the nature of the property, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is not necessary. The Trial Court passed order dated 4.10.2007 rejecting I.A. No. 63 of 2006 in O.S. No. 427 of 2005. This Civil Revision Petition is against the aforesaid order of the Trial Court. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The revision petitioners/defendants did not ask for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, when there is dispute as to some location, area etc.,. The existence of temple is not in dispute. The plaintiff sought declaration to declare that he is the sole administrator. It is for the plaintiff to establish his case. The appointment of Advocate Commissioner, in my view, taking into account the nature of the prayer in the plaint is not necessary. The Trial Court also came to the conclusion that appointment of commissioner is not necessary, taking into account, the averments made in the case. Paragraph 7 and 8 of the impugned order are extracted hereunder: “7. Considering the rival submission the object of the local inspection under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is not to collect evidence, but to elucidate the matter in dispute. However, there is any dispute with regard to the area of land, identification or location of any object, then the local investigation is necessary. A cursory perusal of the entire averments stated in the petition would reveal that the petitioner is wanted to collected some evidence so as to substantiate his case. However, there is any dispute with regard to the area of land, identification or location of any object, then the local investigation is necessary. A cursory perusal of the entire averments stated in the petition would reveal that the petitioner is wanted to collected some evidence so as to substantiate his case. It is further pertinent to see that there is no dispute with regard to identity of property. There is no dispute with regard to areas and measurements of the suit properties. While so, this Court is of the considered view that the averments stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner do not satisfy this Court for the appointment of Commissioner. The Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance upon a decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court, Madras in Rengasamy v. Superintending Engineer T.N.E.B. (2007) 1 MLJ 583 . It has been held as follows: The object of local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 is not to collect evidence such materials to enable the Court properly and correctly understand and assist the evidence on record which clarify or 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 mechanical manner without considering the need therefor. If there is any doubt about the area of land identification or location of an object then local investigation is necessary. 8. Considering the ratio laid down in the said case, this Court is also of the view that the circumstances stated in the petition does not warrant the appointment of the Commissioner. Whileso, this Court is not inclined to allow this application.” 7. As such, the Trial Court has correctly held that there is no dispute with regard to the area of land and identification or location of any object. Hence, the appointment of Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 is not necessary. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No cost. Petition dismissed.