1. The petitioner filed O.S.No.413 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, against the respondents, for the relief of perpetual injunction. He also filed I.A.No.1250 of 2006 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., and the trial Court granted an order of ex parte temporary injunction. The same is in force.

2. Respondents 1 to 4 herein (for short 'the respondents') filed I.A.No.1484 of 2006 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner, to identify the suit schedule property and to note its physical features, including taking of photographs etc. The petitioner opposed the application, on several grounds. Through its order, dated 17.11.2006, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents filed an identical application under the same provision, being I.A.No.1338 of 2006, and the trial Court dismissed the same on 01.11.2006. He contends that the present petition, which was filed on 17.11.2006, without there being any change in the legal and factual position, was absolutely without any basis and the order under revision cannot be