A.V. Sesha Sai, J.

1. Defendants in O.S. No. 148 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, are the revision petitioners. This revision assails the order of the said Court dated 8.08.2013, allowing I.A. No. 713 of 2011, filed by the respondent/plaintiff under the provisions of Order XXVI Rules 1 and 9, r/w Section 151 of C.P.C.

2. The facts and circumstances leading to filing of the present revision are as under:

The respondent instituted O.S. No. 148 of 2011 against the petitioners, seeking perpetual injunction, restraining the petitioners from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac. 1.05 1/2 guntas of land in Sy. No. 495 of Mamillagudem village, Nalgonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. In the said suit the respondent filed I.A. No. 439 of 2011 under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1and 9 for temporary injunction. The Court below granted temporary injunction on 8.08.2013 and the petitioners herein filed C.M.A. No. 5 of 2014 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Nalgonda and the same is pending. The 1st respondent also filed the present I.A. No. 713 of 2011 under Order XXVI Rules 1 and 9 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C., for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for noting down the physical features of the suit schedule property and also for a direction to the Commissioner to take photographs and video of the suit schedule property. Resisting the said application, the petitioners filed counter affidavit. The learned Junior Civil Judge, by virtue of an order dated 8.08.2013 allowed I.A. No. 713 of 2011, appointing the Advocate Commissioner.

3. The present revision, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the said order.

4. Heard Sri K. Mahipathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri D. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent, apart from perusing the material available on record.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order under revision is erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Section 75 and Order XXVI Rules 1 and 9 of C.P.C. It is further contended that the learned Judge grossly erred in not taking into consideration the averments in the counter affidavit filed before the Court below. It is further contended that since the present suit is a simple suit for injunction, appointment of Commissioner is impermissible and entire effort of the respondent is obviously for collection of evidence. It is nextly contended that the application filed by the respondent is a premature one. In support of his submissions and contentions the learned counsel places reliance on the judgments of this Court in G. Nagabhushanam v. T. Eswaramma 2009 (2) ALD 238, Thalia Sulochana v. Thalia Isaac and Anr. 2012 (3) ALD 384, Yenugonda Bal Reddy v. Manemma and Ors. 2011 (2) ALD 472 and Dammalapati Satyanarayana & Ors. v. Datla Venkata Ramabhadra Raju @ D.V.R. Raju & Anr. 2006 (4) ALD 675.

6. Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the learned Junior Civil Judge passed the impugned order strictly in conformity with the provisions of Section 75 and Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. and there is neither jurisdictional error nor any patent infirmity nor any perversity in the impugned order, as such, the same is not amenable to any challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel nextly contends that in the existing facts and circumstances of the case it is highly essential to appoint the Commissioner to arrive at a just, appropriate and proper conclusion. It is further submitted that there is no absolute prohibition on the appointment of commissioner even in the suits for simple injunction. To bolster his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel places reliance on the judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J. Satyasri Rambabu v. A