( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 21-8-1998 of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta passed in I. A. No. 274 of 1998 in O. S. No. 40 of 1998. The said I. A. was filed under Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of Commissioner which was allowed by the learned junior Civil Judge.

( 2 ) THE respondent (plaintiff) filed the said suit for injunction. The learned Counsel for the petitioners (defendants) challenges the order of the appointment of Commissioner of the trial Judge on three grounds.

( 3 ) FIRSTLY, it is contended that the Commissioner was appointed at a very preliminary stage of the suit before the trial started and that as held in a decision of this Court in the case of P. Raghu Kumar v. P. Moses, 1985 (1) APLJ (SN) 15, that under Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC a Commissioner can be appointed only where the Court deems local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidation of matters in dispute.

( 4 ) THE next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the suit itself is merely for injunction though there is an averment in the plaint that the defendants has encroached upon the plaintiffs land and that t