This revision is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, aggrieved by the order dated 08.07.2010 in I.A.No.964 of 2010 in O.S.No.253 of 2010 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijaywada.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and taken as heard the respondents, who are defendants in the said suit, since served failed to attend.

3. The revision is pending since 2010 even without ordering notice at the stage before admission before ordering notice. The petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.964 of 2010 under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of an advocate commissioner for local inspection to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property in the suit for bare injunction and the lower Court, after contest, dismissed the petition on 08.07.2010. The same is now impugned in the revision.

4. The impugned dismissal order of the lower Court, under a mistaken impression and without even reading properly the Order XXVI Rule 9 and Section 75 C.P.C., says the purpose of appointment of an advocate commissioner sought to note down the physical features regarding possession of property cannot be allowed as a party cannot be allowed to fish out evidence