ORDER : 1. The plaintiff in this civil revision petition has impugned the fair and decreetal order passed by the Lower Court in I.A.No.586 of 2015 in O.S.No.79 of 2013. 2. The said suit has been laid by the plaintiff for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction or in the alterative for the relief of possession. 3. As seen from the records, it is found that at the instance of the plaintiff already an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed and accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner had inspected the suit property, noted down its physical features and filed his report along with plan. Thereafter, it is found that the plaintiff has taken out the above said application seeking appointment of fresh Commission to inspect and measure the suit property with the help of the Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer and also with the assistance of the documents filed along with the plaint. The said application had been hotly resisted by the defendants. 4. As rightly found by the Lower Court, the plaintiff has not given any acceptable reason for seeking appointment of second Commission to inspect the suit property and measure the same. The only reason given by the plaintiff is that the first defendant has no right to alienate the suit property and the second defendant has no right or title in respect of the suit property. That apart, no valid reason has been given by the defendants for seeking the appointment of second Commission. Therefore, as rightly held by the Lower Court, it is found that the plaintiff has preferred the above said application only to delay the proceedings and also to gather evidence in support of his case, which could not be countenanced. 5. The plaintiff having laid the suit for the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction or in the alterative for the relief of possession is expected to establish his case by producing the available documents with him, on the other hand, the plaintiff cannot seek to establish his case by taking out a Commission for establishing his title. When the report of the Advocate Commissioner is already available in the file, it is found that there is no need for appointment of second Commission. 6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the decision in 2007-1-L.W.68 (S.Sundarasamy vs. S.Saraswathy). When the report of the Advocate Commissioner is already available in the file, it is found that there is no need for appointment of second Commission. 6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the decision in 2007-1-L.W.68 (S.Sundarasamy vs. S.Saraswathy). The principles of law enunciated in the above said decision are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Lower Court. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed.