ORDER :

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order in IA No. 140 of 2018 in OS No. 17 of 2015 dated 29.6.2018, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur, Kadapa District.

2. The petitioner is the defendant in OS No. 17 of 2015, which was filed for injunction simplicitor and this petitioner contested the suit, mainly on the ground that the suit schedule property belongs to Bobbilala Venkataiah and Bobbilala Chinnabbi, who are the brothers and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since long time and their names were mutated in the revenue records in Sy. No. 21/2 of an extent of Acs. 2-27 cents in the register holding certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar Office, Chitvel, Kadapa District. Further it is submitted in the affidavit in IA No. 140 of 2018 that, the respondent was never in possession of the suit schedule property, while reiterating the allegations made in the written statement, requested to appoint an Advocate Commissioner on the following ground extracted:

"The respondent/plaintiff who is powerful person and he got five brothers and their brother's sons nearly 12 members. The plaintiff family members more than 20 to 25 family houses near the suit schedule mentioned property. The respondent/plaintiff is ready to at any time to demolish the bathrooms lavatory and trees in the mentioned schedule property, if the Commissioner is appointed the whole truth will come out."

3. It appears from the allegation made above, that the Advocate Commissioner was sought to be appointed to note down the physical features of suit schedule property and the constructions of bathrooms lavatory and trees existing thereon, as the respondent/plaintiff is contemplating the demolish the bathrooms lavatory and trees in the suit schedule property.

4. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter in IA No. 140 of 2018 denying the material allegations and the Trial Court upon hearing argument of the both the Counsel, dismissed IA No. 140 of 2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed raising a specific contention that the Trial Court did not consider the necessity of appointing an Advocate Commissioner, which enables the Trial Court to decide the suit effectively and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff even if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed. On the other hand, Advocate Commissioner would be helpful to the Court to decide the suit effectively and thus, the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the IA No. 140 of 2018 and prayed to set-aside the same.

5. Admittedly, the suit is for injunction simplicitor based on possession. This petitioner is the defendant in the suit, who asserted that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff/respondent also asserted that he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thus, the rival claims are regarding possession over the suit schedule property. But, strangely, IA No. 140 of 2018 was filed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the existing physical features of suit schedule property and the constructions of bathrooms lavatory and trees existing thereon, as the respondent/plaintiff is contemplating the demolish the bathrooms lavatory and falling trees in the suit schedule property.

6. When the suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff for injunction simplicitor, it is for him to establish that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property as on the date of filing suit and that the defendants or his men are trying to infringe or invade the legal right of the plaintiff, it gives to cause of action for filing a suit for injunction simplicitor. The plaintiff has to prove his positive case by adducing independent evidence and the plaintiff is not entitled to take advantage of the weakness of the defence of defendant. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff/respondent herein to est