M. Venkata Ramana, J.

1. Heard Sri V.V. Satish, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the order of the learned Trial Judge in appointing an Advocate Commissioner in terms of Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC.

2. The suit is filed for relief of permanent injunction to restrain the first respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. It is a vacant site alongwith a RCC building in an extent of Ac. 0.23 cents including front yard vacant site. The petitioner also sought a temporary injunction in the suit and this petition is stated to be pending. A written statement has already been filed by the first respondent and now the stage of the suit is for settlement of issues.

3. At that stage, the first respondent filed the above petition not only to inspect the plaint schedule property but also to measure the same with reference to certain sale deeds. Such effort is stated to be for better appreciation of the matter in dispute and that it would assist the Court properly. The petitioner resisted appointment of Commissioner mainly on the ground that the attempt is only to collect evidence and when it is the burden of the parties to prove their case adducing appropriate evidence, appointing a Commissioner is improper.

4. Upon consideration of the material as well as the contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, appointed a Commissioner by the impugned order only for a limited purpose of noting down the physical features of the plaint schedule property. Remaining part of the request of the first respondent was rejected.

5. Sri V.V. Satish, learned Counsel for the petitioner now contends that the learned Trial Judge did not take into consideration the fundamental parameters in appointing a Commissioner and did not advert to the case of the parties. For this purpose, he relied on the rulings in Bandi Samuel and another v. Medida Nageswara Rao, : 2017 (1) ALD 582 : 2017 (1) ALT 493 and as to the stage when a Commissioner can be appointed relying on N. Savitramma v. B. Changa Reddy, : 1988 (1) ALT 353.

6. Having regard to the nature of the order passed by the learned Trial Judge, now it is felt desirable that no notice to respondents is necessary, and that this CRP could be disposed off right now. Further, learned Trial Judge noted in his order that the petitioner himself is pressing for disposal of his application for grant of temporary injunction. In such an event, if the civil revision petition is taken up for consideration in this Court, certainly it works out hardship to the petitioner himself.

7. In this backdrop, when the material on record is taken into consideration, particularly having regard to the order passed by the Trial Court, it cannot be stated that by appointing an Advocate Commissioner for a limited purpose of noting down the physical features, the petitioner would suffer any prejudice. Considering the stage at which the matter is now pending before the Trial Court, when a Commissioner visits and notes down the physical features of the property in dispute, it would certainly obviate necessity of leading any oral evidence. The report of the Commissioner would also preserve evidence for the parties as to nature and ground situation of this property, obtaining on the date of his visit, at the initial stage of the litigation.

8. Viewed from such perspective, when in my considered opinion the order under revision does not suffer from any irregularity nor calls for any interference, the same has to be confirmed.

9. The petitioner did not make out any case for consideration in this matter, to call upon the respondents to appear and set out their claim. There cannot be any dispute in respect of the law considered in both the cases relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

10. Therefore, this civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the order in IA No. 157 of 2019 in OS No. 15 of 2019 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Tekkali, dated 3.1.2020. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the temporary injunction petition within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. All pending petitions, stand closed.