This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order dated 16-08-2012 passed in I.A.No.126 of 2012 in O.S.No.535 of 2011 on the file of the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (I.A).

The petitioner herein is the respondent in the I.A. and plaintiff in the suit whereas the respondents herein are the petitioners in the I.A. and defendants in the suit. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the I.A.

The respondent filed the suit against the petitioners for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioners (defendants) filed the I.A. under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to survey the lands of themselves and the respondents with the help of Assistant Director, Survey and Settlement, Ranga Reddy District. His plea in the I.A. is that originally one G. Venkateswara Rao S/o G. Gangaiah was the absolute owner of Ac.4-15 guntas in Sy.No.151 situated in Bhagayat Village, Uppal Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. He executed an unregistered sale deed dated 06-04-1980 in favour of (i) Smt. K. Susheela in respect of Ac.1-05 guntas, (ii) Smt. N. Chittamma in respect of Ac.1-05 guntas, (iii) Sri Ch. Veera Reddy in respect of Ac.1-05 guntas and (iv) Sri Ch. Janga Reddy in respect of Ac.1-00 guntas in consequence of which he delivered the said extents to them respectively following which they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Thereafter the said purchasers approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal Mandal (MRO) for the regularization of their purchases. Thereby the MRO vide ROR Proceedings in File Nos.B/RoR/25/89 and B/RoR/26/89 both dated 23-02-1990 incorporated their names in the relevant revenue records and issued pattedar passbooks and title deeds in their favour. Accordingly they paid necessary amounts. It is further according to them that the first of them purchased one of the four extents and further sold that extent under registered agreement of sale through GPA dated 31-07-2007 and delivered the possession of the property whereas accordingly the third of them has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Further the said Janga Reddy, who purchased the said extent of Ac.1-00 guntas, settled the property in favour of his daughter i.e., the third of them under gift settlement deed dated 31-07-2007 in consequence of which the third of them has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Further Smt. N. Chittamma died on 29-04-1995 following which her only son N. Hanumantha Rao has been in possession and enjoyment of her property. Further Smt. K. Susheela died on 22-09-2005 having already settled her property in favour of her son i.e., the fourth of them. It is further according to them that the respondent who is claiming to be the owner of the suit schedule property has been trying to encroach their property in the process of which he filed the suit and obtained exparte orders. Therefore, their plea is that it is necessary to localize the properties so that they could enjoy their respective properties as per law.

On the ground that inspite of giving necessary opportunity the respondent failed to take necessary measures, the Court below forfeited the right of the respondent (plaintiff) to file the corresponding counter, and after hearing the counsel for the petitioners, allowed the I.A.

Learned counsel for the petitioner (plaintiff) would contend that in a suit for permanent injunction, the contention of the parties about their possession of the suit schedule property need to be appreciated with reference to the evidence to be adduced either at the interlocutory stage or final stage. The appointment of Commissioners at the initial stage of the suit would lead to gathering evidence. Hence it was not proper to appoint the Commissioner as prayed for. In that context he has relied upon the decision of this Court r