C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 27-8-2014 in I.A. No. 451 of 2013 in O.S. No. 36 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for permanent injunction against the respondent in respect of Ac. 5-00 in Sy. No. 167/3 of Kokapet village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with specific boundaries. Even before the trial is commenced, the petitioner has filed the above mentioned application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The lower Court, by the order under Revision has dismissed the said application. In its order, the lower Court has observed that having filed the civil suit with specific pleadings that the petitioner is the owner of the suit schedule property, the burden is on him to establish his plea by adducing evidence.

3. Ordinarily, in a suit for injunction, an Advocate Commissioner is not appointed to gather evidence. Only in cases where there is a serious dispute regarding identity of the property or boundaries thereof, an Advocate-Commissioner can be appointed even in the suits filed for injunction (See: Haryana Wakf Board Vs. Shanti Sarup and others (2008) 8 SCC 671 : 2008 AIR SCW 2500 and Varala Ramachandra Reddy Vs. Mekala Yadi Reddy and others 2010 (4) ALD 198).

4. A perusal of the plaint shows that the petitioner has given specific boundaries to his property. Therefore, the initial burden lies on him to prove the identity of his property by adducing his own evidence. It is only after both the parties adducing their respective evidence, if any ambiguity prevails with reference to the identity of the property, that the Court on its own or on the application of either party, may appoint an Advocate-Commissioner. In my opinion, in a case of this nature, an application for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner at the threshold itself cannot be entertained as the same will amount to gathering evidence.

5. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the lower Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.

6. As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No. 5131 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.

Petition dismissed