ORDER : This Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 17.12.2018, in I.A.No.1350 of 2018 in O.S.No.408 of 2018 on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram (For short ‘trial Court’) filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. 2. Heard Sri. Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are the plaintiffs, who filed suit in O.S.No.408 of 2018 before the trial Court for grant of permanent injunction and the respondent herein is the defendant in the suit. During the suit proceedings, the respondent filed I.A.No.1350 of 2018 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC by contending that she is the absolute owner of the plot No.166 which is situated Southern side of her another plot No.168 at Bhaskar Nagar, Rajahmundry, which was acquired by her by virtue of registered document dated 21.06.2007 and she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The Northern side plot of 166 i.e., plot No.168 is also belongs to her, which was also acquired by way of gift deed. She further submits that West of her plot i.e., 166, 167 is situated is not belongs to vendor of the plaintiffs as alleged by them. Plot No.169 is situated immediately to Western side of her plot No.168 which is northern side to the plot No.166. The plot No.169 is belongs to one Smt. Koppisetty Syamala Devi and they constructed a building with approved plan. She further submits that she is residing in Chennai. The claim of the respondents that the plot Nos.187 and 186 are adjacent as situated, on the plan attached to their sale deed is created one and having knowledge about the falsity, to grab her property by taking advantage of old age, got created documents and filed the suit and on the teeth of injunction trying to occupy the plot No.166, even it is not plot No.187 as alleged by them. The respondents are trying to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment and her son also gave complaint to police, there the respondents keep quiet, but surprisingly, filed the suit for grant of permanent injunction against her. The respondents are trying to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment and her son also gave complaint to police, there the respondents keep quiet, but surprisingly, filed the suit for grant of permanent injunction against her. The respondents are having rowdy elements and dumped some material for construction in her plot and his son is unable to resist their acts. To know the correct facts and the constructions made by the respondents and to know the plot in question is plot No.187 as claimed by the respondent or her plot No.166, the appointment of Advocate commissioner is very much essential. Hence, she constrained to file this Petition. 4. The 1st respondent/1st petitioner herein filed his counter before the trial court and contended that there is no necessity to the respondent to claim the other properties. The petitioner suppressed the truth contained in the link documents with regard to the boundaries etc., and got registered with fraudulent boundaries, to claim wrongfully and the petitioner has been trying to grab the property of others, knowing fully well that her plot is situated elsewhere. She admitted that she is residing in Chennai and she is never in possession of these respondents plot and has no personal knowledge of the topography and she is going to lose nothing as her plots is very much safe where it exists and that the plots of respondents are never adjacent to her plot and it is situated elsewhere at a far place even according to the layout plan and rough plans do not create confidence. The link document of the petitioner itself clearly falsifies her claim, according to which, the boundaries are entirely different from the boundaries claimed by the petitioner under the impugned document, as such, the petitioner herself is unable to establish prima facie as to where exactly her plot is situated, with reference to the boundaries etc., and moreover, her title itself is in the cloud, as such, she cannot seek to appointment of Advocate Commissioner. Moreover, if she wants to locate her plot, she has to file a suit for title or approach the concerned Revenue Officials, but not by filing this type of petitions and prays to dismiss this petition. 5. The trial court after hearing the submissions of both the counsel, allowed the said petition. Assailing the same, the C.R.P came to be filed. 6. 5. The trial court after hearing the submissions of both the counsel, allowed the said petition. Assailing the same, the C.R.P came to be filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the respondent did not approach the Court with clean hands and she is not specific about her plot and its location, including its boundaries. The petitioners have been legitimately pursuing their own works particularly when they are in possession and paying the vacant land tax also and that they are authorized and empowered to do their own work in their own premises and the respondent has been trying to grab the property of others, knowing fully well that her plot is situated elsewhere. The respondent is never in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, as she voluntarily admitted that she is residing in Chennai, as such, she has no personal knowledge of the topography and that the plots of the petitioners are never adjacent to her plot and it is situated elsewhere as a far place even according to the layout plan. The very link document of the respondent itself clearly falsifies her claim, according to which the boundaries are entirely different from the boundaries claimed by her under impugned document and that when the respondent herself is unable to establish prima facie as to where exactly her plot is situated, with reference to the boundaries etc. Moreover, the document No.950/1970 dated 17.03.1970 (link document) stands in the name of Achanta Ramalingeswara Rao, who is father in law of the respondent. Even according to the recitals in the gift deed, the said Ramalingeswara Rao died intestate and there was no oral partition among the family members of respondent and through which, the husband of respondent got the schedule mentioned property and in turn the same was gifted to the respondent. If really the respondent wants to locate her plot, she has to file a suit for title or approach the concerned Revenue officials, apply for survey and then find her property and prays to allow this Revision Petition. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) In G. Ramanaiah Vs. K. Krishnaiah, 2019 (4) ALD 146 wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that: “7. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) In G. Ramanaiah Vs. K. Krishnaiah, 2019 (4) ALD 146 wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that: “7. Even otherwise, the relief claimed in I.A.No.140 of 2018 is to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the existing physical features of suit schedule property and the construction of bathrooms lavatory and trees existing thereon, as the respondent/plaintiff is contemplating the demolish the bathrooms lavatory and falling trees in the suit schedule property. Whether those bathrooms lavatory and trees existing thereon belong to the petitioner/defendant is a question to be decided while determining the possession of property. If, really, the respondent is trying to demolish the bathrooms lavatory and trees existing thereon of this petitioner/defendant, allegedly in the suit schedule property, the remedy available to this petitioner is elsewhere, but not in the present suit. Therefore, appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the existing physical features of suit schedule property and the construction of bathrooms lavatory and trees existing in the suit schedule property would amount to collection of evidence, which is impermissible in the suit filed for injunction simplicitor. In such circumstances, there is no need for appointment of advocate commissioner for collection of such evidence to find out the exact area of property in possession of the respondents in view of decisions reported in (i) Sagi Vijaya Ramachandra Raju and others v. Koppisetti Satyanarayana and others, (ii) Batchu Narayana Rao v. Batchu Venkata Narasimha Rao, (iii) Koduru Sesha Reddy v. Gottigundala Venkata Rami Reddy and others, and (v) Yenugonda Bal Reddy v. Manemma and others. In all the above four judgments, this Court consistently held that appointment of advocate commissioner, in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction or in a suit for injunction simplicitor, to note down physical features amounts to collection of evidence.” (2) Papasani Sankara Reddy Vs. Kandula Hanumantha Reddy and others, 2013 (4) ALD 322 , wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that: “Even though Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC envisages appointment of a Commissioner for elucidation of the matters in dispute, ordinarily, the Commissioner is appointed, where the Court is of the opinion that the available evidence is not enough to arrive at proper and correct conclusion for effectual adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit. Though the petitioner has filed his chief- examination affidavit in November, 2010, he has not even started adducing his evidence. Therefore, on the facts of this case, I am in agreement with the observation of the Court below that the petitioner has filed the application for appointment of a Commissioner to gather evidence instead of discharging his burden by adducing independent evidence.” (3) Mohammed Jaffer Abdul Qadeer Qureshi Vs. Aziz-ur- Rehman Qureshi and others, 2016 (3) Andh LD 38 wherein the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that: “12. ………However, the law is well settled that a Commissioner cannot be appointed to find out as to who amongst the parties is in possession of the property as it is the function of the Court to decide the issue as to who amongst the parties is in possession of the property and the said judicial function cannot be delegated to an advocate commissioner. Under law, in any suit in which the Court deems local investigation is requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, the Court may issue a commission to an advocate or any competent person and direct to make such investigation and to report to the Court.” 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent reiterated her petition averments in the trial Court and prays to dismiss the Revision Petition. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following judgments: (1) In Badana Mutyalu and another Vs. Palli Appalaraju, 2013 (5) ALD 376 wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that: “. In Mahendranath Parida v. Punanda Parida, the Orissa High Court held: “When the controversy is as to identification, location or measurement of the land or premise or object, local investigation should be done at an early stage so that the parties are aware of the report of the Commissioner and go to trial prepared. The party against whom the report may have gone may choose to adduce evidence in rebuttal. Hence, ordinarily in such type of cases local investigation should not be deferred to a stage after the closure of evidence. I do not mean thereby that in no circumstances can local investigation be sought after the evidence is closed. But ordinarily it should be done before the parties adduced evidence.” (2) In Shameem Begum Vs. Hence, ordinarily in such type of cases local investigation should not be deferred to a stage after the closure of evidence. I do not mean thereby that in no circumstances can local investigation be sought after the evidence is closed. But ordinarily it should be done before the parties adduced evidence.” (2) In Shameem Begum Vs. Vennapusa Chenna Reddy and another, 2018 (2) ALD 297 wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that: “The very wording of Rule IX of Order XXVI says Commissions to make local investigation. In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market value of any property, or the amount of any mense profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court. Provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules. The very rule no way says in which suit, a commissioner can be appointed and cannot be appointed, as in any civil suit, a commissioner can be appointed, where the Court thinks fit of necessary of any local investigation having deemed fit. The very wording is local investigation and the purpose of local investigation is to elucidate any matter in dispute itself indicates permissibility of collection of evidence, but mainly from the unique feature of such collection saves much oral evidence and valuable time of the Court and parties or by oral evidence cannot effectively be proved like measurement and demarcation, identify on ground and physical features noting etc.,” (3) Mohammed Jaffer Abdul Qadeer Qureshi Vs. Azizur- Rehman Qureshi and others, 2016 (3) ALD 38 wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that: “12. ………… However, the law is well settled that a Commissioner cannot be appointed to find out as to who amongst the parties is in possession of the property as it is the function of the Court to decide the issue as to who amongst the parties is in possession of the property and the said judicial function cannot be delegated to an advocate commissioner. Under law, in any suit in which the Court deems local investigation is requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, the Court may issue a commission to an advocate or any competent person and direct to make such investigation and to report to the Court.” 8. The appointment of Commissioner etc., is contemplated under Section 75 of Code of Civil Procedure. 75. Power of court to issue commissions: - Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may issue a commission – (a) to examine any person; (b) to make a local investigation; (c) to examine or adjust accounts; or (d) to make a partition; (e) to hold a scientific, technical, or expert investigation; (f) to conduct sale of property which is subject to speedy and natural decay and which is in the custody of the Court pending the determination of the suit; (g) to perform any ministerial act. Order XXVI Rule 9: Commissions to make local investigation:- In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court. 9. The object of local inspection under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC is to elucidate information at the instance of the party who relies upon the same normally may not be available to the Court but could be taken only from its peculiar nature on the spot. When the evidence will necessitate that part of the evidence will elucidate a point, which may otherwise be left in doubt or ambiguity on record, Advocate Commissioner, in effect, is a projection to the Court appointed for a particular purpose. The report of the Commissioner within the suit shall form part of the record. Under the guise of local investigation, party who is making application will not be allowed to collect the evidence. The Court must keep these factors in mind while ordering or rejecting application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner basing on facts of each case. 10. The report of the Commissioner within the suit shall form part of the record. Under the guise of local investigation, party who is making application will not be allowed to collect the evidence. The Court must keep these factors in mind while ordering or rejecting application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner basing on facts of each case. 10. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent is not specific about her plot and its location, including its boundaries. The petitioners have been legitimately pursuing their own works particularly when they are in possession and paying the vacant land tax also and that they are authorized and empowered to do their own work in their own premises and the respondent has been trying to grab the property of others, knowing fully well that her plot is situated elsewhere. The respondent is never in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and she voluntarily admitted in her affidavit that she is residing in Chennai, as such, she has no personal knowledge of the topography and that the plots of the petitioners are never adjacent to her plot and it is situated elsewhere as a far place even according to the layout plan. The very link document of the respondent itself clearly falsifies her claim, according to which the boundaries are entirely different from the boundaries claimed by her under impugned document and that when the respondent herself is unable to establish prima facie as to where exactly her plot is situated, with reference to the boundaries etc. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that the plot Nos.187 and 186 are adjacent as situated, on the plan attached to their sale deed is created one and having knowledge about the falsity, to grab her property by taking advantage of old age, got created documents and filed the suit and on the teeth of injunction trying to occupy the plot No.166, even it is not plot No.187 as alleged by them. The respondents are trying to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment and her son also gave complaint to police, there the respondents keep quiet, but surprisingly, filed the suit for grant of permanent injunction against her. 10. In the above circumstances, this High Court in Shaik Zareena Kasam Vs. The respondents are trying to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment and her son also gave complaint to police, there the respondents keep quiet, but surprisingly, filed the suit for grant of permanent injunction against her. 10. In the above circumstances, this High Court in Shaik Zareena Kasam Vs. Patan Sadab Khan, 2011 (4) ALD 231 held that: “Whenever there is a dispute regarding boundaries or physical features of the property or any allegation of encroachment as narrated by one party and disputed by another party, the facts have to be physically verified, because, the recitals of the documents may not reveal the true facts and measuring of land on the spot by a Surveyor may become necessary”. 11. Admittedly, there is a dispute between both the parties with regard to plot No.166. If there is an allegation of encroachment as narrated by one party and disputed by another party, the facts have to be physically verified, because, the recitals of the documents may not reveal the true facts and measuring of land on the spot by a Surveyor may become necessary. Moreover, if an advocate commissioner is appointed, no prejudice will cause to the respondent and after filing of Advocate commissioner report, the respondent has got an opportunity to file objections on the said report and both the parties having opportunity to examine the Advocate commissioner for their uncertainties. 12. In view of the above discussion, the petitioners are directed to raise any objections if any with regard to the Advocate Commissioner report before the trial Court and the trial Court has to examine all the issues raised by petitioners. 13. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is disposed of. The order dated 17.12.2018 passed in I.A.No.1350 of 2018 in O.S.No.408 of 2018 by the trial Court, is hereby set aside. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.