ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was directed against the order dated 1.6.2021 passed in I.A. No. 1227 of 2020 in I.A. No. 805 of 2020 in O.S. No. 322 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, wherein and whereby the trial Court allowed the said I.A. filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein/plaintiffs seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner.

2. The facts germane for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition, in nutshell, are that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein filed O.S. No. 322 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein and others from interfering with the land in Sy. No. 346/AA/2 admeasuring Ac. 0-085 guntas of Kalvakunta village. The case of the respondents being the plaintiffs in the said suit was that they and one R.V. Goverdhan Naik are the joint pattedars, owners and possessors of open land bearing Sy. No. 346/AA/2 admeasuring Ac. 0.10 ½ gts. situated at Kalvakunta, Sangareddy Mandal and District. Originally the said survey number belong to Manne Narsimlu, Manne Shivunamma and Manne Krishna all are residents of Kalvakunta from whom they purchased the said land under registered sale-deed No. 1908 of 2010 on 05.3.2010 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 5,25,000/- and since then they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioners and said Goverdhan Naik are having their undivided shares in the suit land to the extent of 50% to Petitioner No. 1, Petitioners 2 and 3 and Goverdhan Naik are having 16.66% each. The said Sy. No. 346/AA to the extent of Ac. 0-08 ½ guntas is the subject matter of the suit.

3. It is further submitted that since the petitioners herein and others are trying to interfere with their possession over the said property without any manner of right, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed the suit seeking permanent injunction. The respondents/plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 1227 of 2020 under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner to survey the suit schedule plot with the assistance of Government surveyor and locate the same immediately since the petitioners herein are disputing the location of the suit schedule plot and claiming right over it.

4. The petitioners herein filed their counter denying the pleadings of the respondents/ plaintiffs by contending that the respondents are neither owners nor possessors of land in Sy. No. 346/AA and without possession of any piece of land, the suit for perpetual injunction is not maintainable. The respondents/plaintiffs nor their vendors are not in possession of the subject land at any point of time. Further, the petition for appointment of advocate commissioner to know the exact location of suit schedule property is filed only to collect the evidence as there is no vacant land in Sy. No. 346. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. The trial Court by order dated 1.6.2021 allowed the I.A. No. 1227 of 2020, which is impugned herein, observing that there is a serious dispute with respect to localization of suit property and in such circumstances appointment of advocate commissioner to survey the land and demarcate the suit property is necessary and such procedure by the advocate commissioner would not amount to collection of evidence but would help the court to resolve the issue between the parties. As stated supra, aggrieved thereby the petitioners/respondents /defendants preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

6. Attacking the finding given by the trial Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that appointment of advocate commissioner to know the exact location of suit schedule property is filed only to collect the evidence as there is no vacant land in Sy. No. 346.

7. Now the point for consideration is can there be an order of appointing Advocate Commissioner in a suit for injunction at appellate stage?

8. It was hel