ORDER : 1. This civil revision petition is filed to set aside the order dated 08.12.2015 passed in I.A. No. 1045 of 2015 in O.S. No. 16 of 2009 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Warangal, wherein and whereby, the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 and 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) by the revision petitioners was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5-Plaintiffs filed suit in O.S. No. 16 of 2009 before the I Additional District Judge, Warangal for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the defendants i.e. respondents 1 and 2 and the revision petitioners herein. The trial in the suit was also completed and the matter is posted for arguments. While so, the revision petitioners filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 and 10 read with Section 151 of CPC to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features and for localization of the schedule property with boundaries, since they are disputing the description of the boundaries in their written statement. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-defendant No. 2 resisted the same by filing a suitable counter. 5. On a consideration of the material on record, the trial Court has dismissed the said application, vide order dated 08.12.2015, stating that the suit is coming-up for arguments and the photographs of the suit schedule property are available in the record and in the counter filed by respondent No. 2-defendant No. 2 stated that there is no dispute with regard to the boundaries. As such, there is no necessity for noting down the physical features of the suit schedule property. Challenging the said order, the present revision is filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application. As the petitioners have disputed the boundaries of the suit schedule property, they filed an application to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property in order to localize the property with boundaries. He also submits that no prejudice would cause to the case respondents herein, if the said application is allowed. 7. As the petitioners have disputed the boundaries of the suit schedule property, they filed an application to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property in order to localize the property with boundaries. He also submits that no prejudice would cause to the case respondents herein, if the said application is allowed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5, while supporting the impugned order, submits that there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the trial Court while dismissing the present application. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the present revision. 8. On perusal of the record would disclose that the suit is coming-up for arguments, as both the parties have adduced evidence. 9. The present application is filed to appoint an advocate commissioner for the purpose of noting down the physical features of the schedule property. The petitioners herein have disputed the boundaries in their written statement. However, in the counter filed by respondent No. 2-defendant No. 2, it is stated that the physical features of the property are readily available with the photographs and denied the boundaries, as mentioned by the revision petitioners. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contentions has placed reliance of the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Vishnudas Manga Bhavani and another vs. Vooturi Bhaskar and others, 1993 (2) ALT 589 , wherein it is held at Para-5 and 6, which reads thus: “5. The learned Subordinate Judge was right in observing that “the stage of the case” was “also to be taken into consideration for appointing the Commissioner to make local inspection” but he failed to keep in view that the question whether an application for the appointment of the Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 was belated or not depended on the facts of each case. In this Case, I am clearly of the view that it cannot be said that it was belated-soon electric motors, pump sets and engines, the application for appointment of a Commissioner for verification of the ground position was filed. 6. As to what would be the probative value of the findings by the Commissioner is a different matter into which it would not be appropriate for me to enquire at this stage of the matter. 6. As to what would be the probative value of the findings by the Commissioner is a different matter into which it would not be appropriate for me to enquire at this stage of the matter. It would be for the learned Subordinate Judge to weigh the same at the proper time.” 11. In the instant case, the suit is coming-up for arguments for the last four years without any progress, pending disposal of the said CRP. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that by appointing an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features, a further clarity would be obtained to localize the suit schedule property with boundaries and by doing so, no prejudice would cause to the parties. 13. Further I am of the view that the trial Court has improperly appreciated the material on record and impugned order vitiated with illegalities and material irregularities and the same is liable to be set aside by exercising the powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 08.12.2015 passed in I.A. No. 1045 of 2015 in O.S. No. 16 of 2009 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Warangal, is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to appoint an advocate commissioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as per procedure and fix another two weeks for submission of the report and thereafter, dispose of the main O.S. No. 16 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (03) months. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision petition, shall stand closed.