ORDER : J.SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the orders dated 16.09.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, where under the I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S. No.167 of 2016 filed by the petitioners/defendants seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to conduct local investigation, survey, demarcation and to note down the physical features of the land to an extent of Ac.0-13 guntas in Sy.No.786 situated at Paloncha Town and Mandal, with the help of a Mandal Surveyor, was dismissed. 2. Revision petitioners herein are the defendants and respondents are the plaintiffs in the main suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.16 of 2016 before the trial Court. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of this civil revision petition briefly stated are; 3.1 That the plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.167 of 2016 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property to an extent of 213 square yards, by demolishing the existing RCC building bearing House No.22-3-22, from the defendants and also for perpetual injunction, wherein they stated that they are owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Ac.0-13 guntas in Sy.No.786 situated at Nehru Nagar, Dammapeta X Road, Paloncha Town and they constructed residential houses in the said land to some extent and their grandfather namely Kanagala Narayana purchased the said land through a registered sale deed dated 22.03.1968 vide document bearing No.142 of 1968 and their grandfather has orally partitioned his self acquired properties among his three sons and himself in the year 1977. The above said Ac.0-13 guntas of land fell to the share of the father of the plaintiffs, as such, his possession is being recorded in the pahanies since 1977-78. Their grandfather died in the year 2000. 3.2. It is further averred that their father constructed a tiled house and compound wall in the year 1980 in an extent of 881.82 square yards, out of the said Ac.0-13 guntas, and he paid property tax to the house bearing No.22-3-22 since 1980 and he died in the year 1986. After his death, the plaintiffs succeeded the properties of their father, including the suit schedule property. After his death, the plaintiffs succeeded the properties of their father, including the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of defendant No.1 and late Laxman Rao. Laxman Rao and father of the plaintiffs namely Suryanarayana are natural brothers. Basing on the request of K.Laxman Rao, mother of the plaintiffs namely Ramanujamma permitted him to construct a hut in an extent of 213 square yards, out of 0-13 guntas, in the year 1993 and the said Laxman Rao agreed to vacate the said land whenever demanded by the family members of the plaintiffs and constructed a hut therein with an oral undertaking. 3.3. It is also averred that defendant No.1 constructed the existing RCC building in the suit schedule property with the oral permission of the plaintiffs and their mother, with an undertaking to vacate the suit property whenever demanded by the family members of the plaintiffs. The mother of the plaintiffs died in the year 2013. Defendant No.1 and her sons are residing in the suit property with the consent of the plaintiffs only. On 07.08.2016, the plaintiffs demanded the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property by demolishing the existing building, as the plaintiffs are in need of the same for their personal use. However, the defendants did not consider their demand. At that stage, plaintiffs filed the said suit. Defendant No.3 filed written statement on 18.10.2016 denying the averments made by the plaintiffs. 3.4. When the said suit is posted for defendants’ evidence, defendants filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2025 seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for the purpose of local investigation, survey, demarcation and to note down the physical features of the land to an extent of Ac.0-13 guntas in Sy.No.786 situated at Paloncha Town and Mandal, with the help of a Mandal Surveyor, stating that the plaintiffs made contradictory statement and there is ambiguity about the extent of the land and existence of the house of three sons of Kanagala Narayana in the land of 0-13 guntas in Sy.No.786 and therefore, demarcation of the land and to note down the physical features is very much necessary for adjudication of the suit. Plaintiffs filed counter and opposed the said application. 3.5. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the said application by its order dated 16.09.2025. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs have filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Plaintiffs filed counter and opposed the said application. 3.5. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the said application by its order dated 16.09.2025. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs have filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Heard Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, learned senior counsel, representing Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants and Sri T.Sharath, learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs. 5. Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners/defendants: 5.1 Learned senior counsel submitted that, the plaintiffs with an intention to grab the property of the defendants created registered partition deed among themselves, as if they partitioned their property in the year 2014. In the said document, they have shown the site of defendant No.2, as a part and parcel of their property, with an intention to encroach the same. He further submitted that PWs.1 to 3, in their evidence, made contradictory statements and there is ambiguity about the extent of land and existence of the houses of three sons of K.Narayana and the plaintiffs have executed the alleged partition deed bearing No.64 of 2014 to an extent of 881.82 square yards only out of Ac.0-13 guntas, which is equivalent to 1573 square yards, and there is no explanation either in the alleged partition deed or in the pleadings or in their evidence with regard to the remaining extent of 691.18 square yards. 5.2 He further submitted that the plaintiffs have not mentioned the proper boundaries to the suit schedule property and also there is ambiguity about the extent of the land and the existence of the houses of three sons of Kanagala Narayana in the land of Ac.0-13 guntas. For the said purpose, appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner is very much necessary for demarcation of the land to an extent of Ac.0-13 guntas, with the help of a Mandal Surveyor and also for local inspection and to note down the physical features. If an Advocate-Commissioner is appointed for the above said purpose, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs. If an Advocate-Commissioner is appointed for the above said purpose, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs. 5.3 He also submitted that the trial Court, without properly considering the contentions of the defendants, dismissed the application only on the alleged ground that the defendants had not filed counterclaim claiming the schedule property and they filed the application with an intention to delay the proceedings, and the said reasons are absolutely not true and correct and the same is contrary to the pleadings and the impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to law. 5.4 In support of his contention, he relied upon the order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kommalapati Madhavi and another vs. Byrapuneni Vijaya Lakshmi and others , (2022) 6 ALT 153 . 6. Submissions of learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs: 6.1 Learned counsel submitted that there is no dispute that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the land to an extent of Ac.0-13 guntas in Sy.No.786 situated at Paloncha Village and the same was acquired from their father, who got the same in partition through his father namely Kanagala Narayana, who had purchased the same through registered sale deed, dated 22.03.1968. After the death of plaintiffs’ father, basing on the request made by K.Laxman Rao, who is none other than the father of the defendants, plaintiffs’ mother permitted him to construct a hut in an extent of 213 square yards in the year 1993, with a specific oral undertaking to vacate the said hut, whenever demanded by the family members of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, defendant No.1 constructed the existing RCC building in the suit schedule property to an extent of 213 square yards by giving the undertaking that he will hand over the vacant possession whenever required by the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs demanded to vacate the suit schedule property, defendants failed to do so and therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit. 6.2 He further submitted that the defendants filed the application seeking to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner only with an intention to drag on the proceedings on one pretext or other. He further submitted that the boundaries mentioned to the suit schedule property are correct and there is no dispute in respect of identification of the schedule property. 6.2 He further submitted that the defendants filed the application seeking to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner only with an intention to drag on the proceedings on one pretext or other. He further submitted that the boundaries mentioned to the suit schedule property are correct and there is no dispute in respect of identification of the schedule property. He also submitted that the burden lies upon the plaintiffs to prove their case and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application by giving cogent reasons. There are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial Court and therefore, civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Analysis: 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.No.167 of 2016 for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property to an extent of 213 square yards by demolishing the existing RCC building bearing No.22-3-22, out of 0-13 guntas situated in Sy.No.786 Nehru Nagar, Dammapeta X Road, Paloncha Town, and for other reliefs. In the said suit, defendant No.3 filed written statement on 18.10.2016. When the defendants’ evidence was commenced, the defendants filed I.A. No.3 of 2025 invoking the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for the purpose of local investigation, survey, demarcation and to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property with the help of a Mandal Surveyor, on the ground that PWs.1 to 3 in their evidence made contradictory statements about the extent of the land and there is ambiguity about the existence of the house of three sons of Kanagala Narayana in the land of 0-13 guntas and also for identification of the suit schedule property and its boundaries. 8. Whereas the specific case of the plaintiffs is that suit schedule property i.e. 213 square yards covered by RCC building bearing H.No.22-3-22, out of 0-13 guntas, and the defendants have constructed the said house with permission of the plaintiffs and their mother and there is no dispute in respect of the title of the plaintiffs. Hence, recording physical features of the suit schedule property through an Advocate-Commissioner is not required, especially there is no ambiguity to identify the suit schedule property. Hence, recording physical features of the suit schedule property through an Advocate-Commissioner is not required, especially there is no ambiguity to identify the suit schedule property. Merely basing upon the contradictory statements made by PWs.1 to 3 in their evidence about the existence of the land and house of sons of Kanagala Narayana, the defendants filed the present application seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner. Especially the burden lies upon the plaintiffs to prove their case that in the suit schedule property, there is RCC building in an extent of 213 square yards out of 0-13 guntas in Sy.No.786. 9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property or not, has to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial, basing upon the evidence adduced by the respective parties. Similarly whether the plaintiffs have created registered partition deed bearing No.64 of 2014 among themselves, and whether they partitioned their property with a view to encroach the property of defendant No.2 with a malafide intention or not, are also have to be adjudicated in the main suit. To disprove the claim of plaintiffs, defendants are not entitled to seek aid of appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner, especially the burden lies upon the plaintiffs to prove their case. 10. It is relevant to extract the provisions of Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as under: “Order 26 Rules 9 – Commissions to make local investigations; 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: 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.” 11. The above said provision envisages that in any suit, the Court deems a local investigation to be required for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, the Court may issue a Commission of such person, as it needs for directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court. 12. In Kommalapati Madhavi supra, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is justified where there exists a real and substantive dispute with regard to the identity, location, or measurement of the suit property, particularly when rival parties claim overlapping extents in the same survey number. The Court observed that in such circumstances, localisation of the property with reference to the title deeds of both sides would assist the Court in effectively adjudicating the controversy. It was further held that a Commissioner’s report is only an aid to the Court, non- adjudicatory in nature, and does not amount to collection of evidence, especially where ambiguity regarding identity persists notwithstanding the evidence adduced by the parties. 13. However, the ratio laid down in Kommalapati Madhavi supra is inapplicable to the facts of the present case, as the suit schedule property is clearly described with definite boundaries, and neither its existence nor its location is in dispute. The application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner has been filed at the stage of defendants evidence, not to resolve any genuine ambiguity regarding identification of the property, but to disprove the plaintiffs’ case and to fill up lacunae in the defence. As held by this Court in Kommalapati Madhavi supra, when the burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish title and entitlement to recovery of possession, the defendants cannot invoke Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC as a substitute for evidence or as a means to delay the proceedings. In the absence of any bona fide dispute regarding the identity or physical features of the suit schedule property, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is unwarranted, and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner does not apply. 14. It is already observed supra, that the specific case of the plaintiffs that RCC building is existing in 213 square yards out of Ac.0-13 guntas in Sy.No.786 and the said extent belonging to them. 14. It is already observed supra, that the specific case of the plaintiffs that RCC building is existing in 213 square yards out of Ac.0-13 guntas in Sy.No.786 and the said extent belonging to them. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property or not, has to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court, basing upon the evidence adduced by both the parties and the entire burden lies upon the plaintiffs to prove their case. 15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, dated 16.09.2025, passed by the trial Court to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. It is made clear that the trial Court is directed to decide the suit on its own merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made either in the impugned order or in this order. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.