M. Satyanarayan Murthy, J.

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the Order 10.10.2012 in I.A. No.719 of 2008 in O.S. No.659 of 2008 passed by Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Miyapur, allowing an application filed under Section 151 CPC to appoint new Advocate Commissioner to locate the suit schedule plot with the help of Mandal Surveyor or Assistant Director of Survey and Settlement, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranaga Reddy District.

2. The respondent herein filed suit O.S.No.659 of 2008 for injunction simpliciter alleging that the he purchased a plot for Rs.12,000/- under registered Sale Deed, Document bearing No.9275 of 1990, dated 24.07.1990 from Erani Mallaiah and others and since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the property and the revision petitioner/defendant allegedly made an attempt to infringe or invade the legal right of the plaintiff. The schedule of the property is annexed to the plaint and described as follows:

"all that residential Plot No.116 in Sy.No.78 admeasuring 300 sq.yards equivalent to 250.80 sq.mtrs situated at Madhapur village Grampanchat, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality Ranga Reddy District.

North: Road, South: Neighbour's; East: plot No.115 and West-Plot No.117".

3. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed I.A.No.3148 of 2004 under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC to appoint an advocate commissioner to note the physical features of the suit schedule property, reminiscence of compound wall in the suit schedule site and other physical features. Initially, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the Court and he visited the suit schedule property and filed his report.

4. The petitioner herein/defendant appeared before the Court and filed Written Statement raising several objections with regard to identity of the property while contending that he is the owner of Plot No.2/A in Sy.No.77(part) of Patrika Nagar, Madhapur, Serlingampally and the property purchased by the respondent/plaintiff is distinct and thereby denied the right of the respondent/plaintiff in the schedule property.

5. To identify the schedule property with the help of Mandal Surveyor, the respondent herein/plaintiff sought appointment of an advocate commissioner.

6. The respondent therein filed Counter denying the material allegations, inter alia, contending that an ex parte order was passed appointing an Advocate Commissioner in I.A. No.3148 of 2004 and the Commissioner filed his report before the Court and later interim injunction granted by the Court was set aside and the CMA preferred against it was also dismissed confirming the Order passed by the trial Court. He further admitted that his plot is situated in 2/A in Sy.No.77(part) of Patrika Nagar, Madhapur, Serilingampally. However, disputed the appointment of Advocate Commissioner since appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to localise the schedule property amounts to collection of evidence.

7. The trial Court, upon hearing both the counsel, appointed Smt Shalini, Advocate, as Commissioner with a specific direction to localize the suit schedule property with the help of Mandal Surveyor.

8. Aggrieved by the Order dated 10.10.2012 in I.A. No.719 of 2008 in O.S. No.659 of 2008, the respondent before the trial Court preferred this revision, under article 227 of the Constitution of India, raising several contentions and the main ground urged before this Court is that when earlier Commissioner Report was not expunged on the objections raised by him, second commissioner cannot be appointed for the same purpose and appointment of commissioner in a suit for injunction simpliciter amounts to collection of evidence and prayed to set aside the Order dated 10.10.2012.

9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant, while reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in CRP No.571 of 2015 dated 27.02.2015 (C. Vamshidar Reddy v. P. Suryanarayanarao) and based