ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2025 in I.A. No. 182 of 2024 in O.S. No. 150 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial, appointing an Advocate Commissioner, this Civil Revision Petition is filed by the unsuccessful Defendants 4 and 5 in the suit. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 3. The case of plaintiffs is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of dry land in Survey No. 42 to an extent of Ac. 2.35 guntas, situated at Naspur Village, Mancherial Town and Mandal, Adilabad District. When Revenue authorities (Defendants 1 to 3) tried to dispossess plaintiffs from the schedule lands without following due process of law, they filed Writ Petition No. 11112 of 2013 which was disposed of by order dated 23.03.2013 directing not to dispossess Plaintiff No.1 except in accordance with law after putting her on notice and giving an opportunity of being heard. Despite, Revenue authorities issued Form-D1 and proceedings dated 13.05.2013 assigning plaintiff's land in favour of the 4 th defendant, therefore, plaintiffs filed Contempt Case No. 1618 of 2013. In this Contempt Case, Revenue officials filed an additional counter along with a Plan showing plaintiffs' land in BLUE colour and the land allotted to Defendant No.4 in BROWN colour and contended that both are different lands. On the strength of the counter, this Court closed the Contempt Case by order dated 10.04.2015. 3.1. Later, plaintiffs filed another Contempt Case No. 1021 of 2015 stating that Revenue authorities played fraud by manipulating the Plan, showing the schedule of property elsewhere in Blue Colour, while the fact remains that schedule of property as shown in Brown colour only to avoid the consequences of contempt. This Court while closing the case by order dated 31.07.2015 has 'observed that ‘the question whether the land shown in brown colour belongs to petitioner or to the 4 th respondent is extraneous to the order passed in the Writ Petition. This Court while examining whether or not the petitioner was dispossessed in violation of the order passed in Writ Petition, cannot, in summary proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, adjudicate whether the land shown in the map in brown colour belongs to petitioner or to the fourth respondent. This Court while examining whether or not the petitioner was dispossessed in violation of the order passed in Writ Petition, cannot, in summary proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, adjudicate whether the land shown in the map in brown colour belongs to petitioner or to the fourth respondent. These are all matters for adjudication in a civil suit filed before the Competent Civil Court. ...' 3.2. In tune with the observations in the Contempt Case, plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 150 of 2015 before the Senior Civil Judge at Mancherial, under Section 26, Order-VII Rule-1 of C.P.C., for declaration of title in respect of schedule of property and that schedule of property is located in Brown Colour in the Plan and for consequential injunction. In the said suit, plaintiffs filed the subject Application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Sec. 151 CPC to appoint Advocate Commissioner to trace out the fact that suit schedule boundaries or boundary named persons or their legal heirs identity available in brown and blue colour of the location map, for adjudication of the case. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Defendants 1 to 3 (Revenue authorities) has not objected for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. However, the unofficial Defendants 5 and 6 filed counter affidavit contesting the IA alleging that plaintiffs can prove their case by adducing cogent oral and documentary evidence but not by resorting to appointment of Advocate Commissioner and by way of appointment of Commissioner the party is not expected to gather the evidence. 3.3. The court below allowed the I.A. by the order under Revision holding that to declare the title of the suit schedule property, there should not be ambiguity with regard to suit schedule property. Therefore, it is necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to give clarity to adjudicate the case.Challenging the said order, this Revision is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri M.R.S. Srinivas. He argues that trial Court failed to understand the scope and significance of Section 73 and Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC. In a dispute regarding boundaries and identification of neighbouring owners must be established by oral and documentary evidence but not by way of local investigation, that was taken out only to cover up the lacunas as plaintiffs failed to adduce proper evidence in their favour. 4.1. In a dispute regarding boundaries and identification of neighbouring owners must be established by oral and documentary evidence but not by way of local investigation, that was taken out only to cover up the lacunas as plaintiffs failed to adduce proper evidence in their favour. 4.1. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the judgments in Yenugonda Bal Reddy v. Manemma, (2011) 2 ALD 472 , Batchu Narayana Rao v. Batchu Venkata Narasimha Rao , (2010) 5 ALD 83 and Sarala Jain v. Sangu Gangadhar, (2016) 3 ALD 197 5. Heard Sri C. Kumar, learned counsel for plaintiffs - Respondents 1 to 5. To justify his contentions, he relied on the judgments in Haryana Waqf Board v. Shanti Sarup , (2008)8 SCC 671 , P. Sreedevi v. IVLN Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Prasad , 2020(6) ALD 99 (TS) (DB), Shaik Zareena Kasam v. Patan Sadab Khan , 2011(4) ALD 231 , Smt. A.Laxmamma v. Smt. A. Venkatamma , 2016(6) ALT 795 (SB), M. Yadaiah v. M. Hilkamma , 2022(2) ALD 299 (TS), Adarsh Constructions, Hyderabad v, Qamaarunnisa Begum , 2022(4) ALD 112 (TS), Singidi Ram Reddy v. Kota Sudhakar Gupta , 2023(4) ALD 346 (TS) 6. For better understanding, Order XXVI Rule-9 CPC is extracted below: “ 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.” 7. In the factual scenario, it is necessary to look at the judgments relied on by the respective counsel. In Yenugonda Bal Reddy ’s case (supra), it is held that appointment of advocate commissioner for noting physical features and for local investigation amounts to collection of evidence by the petitioner and is not permissible under law. In the case on hand, plaintiffs allege manipulation of map by the Revenue authorities. In Yenugonda Bal Reddy ’s case (supra), it is held that appointment of advocate commissioner for noting physical features and for local investigation amounts to collection of evidence by the petitioner and is not permissible under law. In the case on hand, plaintiffs allege manipulation of map by the Revenue authorities. Therefore, there is no error in appointingan advocate commissioner to resolve the dispute as to whether there is manipulation of map or not. 7.1. In Batchu Narayana Rao’s case and Sarala Jain ’s case, it is observed that appointment of advocate commissioner to identify the suit schedule property and to fix boundaries is found fault. As stated above advocate commissioner is appointed in the case on hand only to resolve the dispute of manipulation of map. Thus, the judgments relied on by Defendants (Petitioners herein) are of no help to them. 7.2. In Haryana Waqf Board ’s case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a case of demarcation of disputed land, it is appropriate for the Court to direct investigation by appointing a local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. 7.3. In P. Sreedevi’s case , a learned Division Bench of this Court held that when there is a dispute of localization or demarcation of property, the best course of action is to appoint an Advocate Commissioner/Surveyor for localization. 7.4. In Shaik Zareena Kasam ’s case (supra), this Court 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 the other, 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/Advocate Commissioner may become necessary. 7.5. In Smt. A. Laxmamma ’s case (supra), this Court justified the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to resolve the issue relating to correctness or otherwise of the sketch map said to have been filed by one party. 7.6. 7.5. In Smt. A. Laxmamma ’s case (supra), this Court justified the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to resolve the issue relating to correctness or otherwise of the sketch map said to have been filed by one party. 7.6. In M. Yadaiah ’s case (supra), this Court held that Section 75 CPC deals with appointment of Advocate Commissioner and envisages that a Commissioner can be appointed to aid the Court, as such, a Commissioner may be appointed to examine any person, to make local investigation, to examine or adjust accounts, to make a partition, to hold a scientific or technical or expert investigation, to conduct sale of property, in the circumstances mentioned therein or to perform a ministerial act. 7.7. In Adarsh Constructions ’s case (supra), this Court held that there is no absolute bar for appointment of Advocate Commissioner in a suit for injunction simplicitor either in the course of trial or during enquiry in a temporary injunction petition. 7.8. In Singidi Ram Reddy ’s case (supra), this Court held that ‘the argument advanced by the counsel for the revision petitioners is liable to be rejected, in view of the facts of the present case, wherein the relief that is being claimed by the plaintiff is for permanent injunction with a specific plea that the subject land is an agricultural land, whereas the defence in the written statement is to the effect that the plaintiff has changed the boundaries in the subsequent sale deed from the original sale deed in the above factual scenario, for deciding the lis in the suit, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner would certainly be helpful as the dispute regarding the boundaries of the suit schedule property will be appreciated with the help of the report that may be filed by the Advocate-Commissioner’. 8. From the above judgments, the principles to be culminated are, i) there is no bar in appointing an Advocate Commissioner in a civil suit; ii) when the boundaries and the exact location of the suit schedule land is in dispute, appointment of Advocate Commissioner will be more helpful for the court to decide the lis; iii) in case of demarcation of land, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is much helpful; and iv) to resolve the issue relating to correctness or otherwise of the sketch map said to have been filed by one party, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is justifiable. 9. 9. It is also to be seen, Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC empowers Courts to appoint commissions for local investigations when necessary to elucidate matters in dispute, ascertain property values, or determine mesne profits or damages. This provision ensures that Courts can obtain precise and direct information from the locus in quo, facilitating informed and just decisions. However, appointment of a Commissioner under this Rule is discretionary and depends on the specifics of each case. Courts consider the necessity of a local investigation to resolve the dispute effectively. For instance, in boundary disputes or cases involving alleged encroachments, a Commissioner's report can provide crucial on-site insights that are otherwise unattainable. 10. In the case on hand, plaintiffs dispute the map (land shown in blue colour/brown colour) produced by the Revenue authorities. Therefore, to make local investigation, identify the suit schedule land and its boundaries, the Court below appointed an Advocate Commissioner. This Court finds no flaw in such an action in the factual scenario of the extant case, hence is of the opinion that this Revision does not merit consideration. 11. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed.No costs. 12. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.