I.A. Ansari, J.

1. The opposite-party herein instituted, Title Suit No. 87/2009, seeking relief, inter alia, of declaration of her rights, title and interest over the suit land, confirmation of her possession over the same and also permanent injunction restraining the present petitioners, as defendants in the said suit, their men, agent, etc., from disturbing peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and/or alienating the suit land. The plaint was also accompanied by an application made under Order XXXIX , Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC, wherein a prayer was made for granting interim injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, etc., from disturbing peaceful possession or, in any way, making attempt to alienate the suit land. This application gave rise to Misc. Case No. 111/2009, whereupon an interim order was made, on 2.3.2009, by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Misc. Case No. 111/2009, directing the parties to the suit to maintain status quo as on the date of passing of the said interim order. This order was made absolute by yet another order passed on 4.1.2011. Alleging to the effect, inter alia, that having obtained the order, directing the parties to maintain status quo, the plaintiff had dumped earth and sand on the suit land and had been levelling the suit land, two petitions were filed by the present petitioners, as defendants, in the said suit. One of these applications was made seeking punishment of the plaintiff for disobedience of the injunction order, whereby the learned trial Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo; the other petition was made seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to make investigation into the matter so that the real state of affairs over the suit land can be correctly gathered by the Court. These application were also supported by some photographs of the suit land. The application, seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner, gave rise to Misc. Case No. 171/2011.

2. Having received objection to the application, seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner, the learned Court below passed an order, on 9.5.2011, rejecting the prayer for appointment of Advocate Commissioner on the ground that even if a Commissioner is appointed, he (the Commissioner) would not be able to say anything regarding the date on which the red soil had been dumped on the suit land, i.e., whether the soil had been dumped and the land was levelled before passing of the order of injunction or thereafter. Aggrieved by the order, dated 9.5.2011, this revision has been filed.

3. Heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Though, on receipt of notice of the revision petition, an Advocate was appointed by the plaintiff-opposite party and his name stands reflected in the cause list today, none has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party.

4. While considering the present petition, the statements, made by the plaintiffs, in paragraph 3 and 6 of the plaint (Title Suit No. 87/2009), may be taken note of. Paragraph 3 and 6 read as under:

3. That the plaintiff states that the vendor delivered vacant possession of the said purchased land 01 bigha 10 katha 10 lechas and accordingly the same was possessing by planting threes like coconut, betlenut, bananas etc. and also constructed temporary eksali for the purpose of watchman/rented, incidentally it may be stated that there is adjacent another plot belonging to the plaintiff which was initially hold by the Sri Harendra Chandra Roy and to ingress and outguess to the said land under dag No. 459, a passage was opened through the suit land and still using for the purpose.

4. . .

5. . .

5. That the plaintiff states that although there is rectification with respect to survey number etc. the actual possession over the land belonging to Case No. 455 containing the suit land remained uninterrupted and in continuing possession over the