The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for local investigation at a belated stage after closure of evidence and when the suit is adjourned for arguments is unwarranted.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 1 assailing the orders dated 01.06.2017, in I.A. No. 1028 of 2015 in O.S. No. 2616 of 2007, on the file of the learned First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. This application in I.A. No. 1028 of 2015 was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short CPC) for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and boundaries of suit schedule property.

3. Heard on both sides. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the original suit. The respondents 1 and 2 have also filed a detailed counter.

4. The plaintiffs have filed the original suit O.S. No. 2616 of 2007 for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Originally, the plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S. No. 870 of 2000 for perpetual injunction against the same defendants and that suit was dismissed after full length trial. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred A.S. No. 251 of 2006, on the file of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy. During pendency of the said appeal, the plaintiffs have filed I.A. No. 599 of 2007 seeking permission to withdraw the said appeal with a liberty to file a comprehensive suit against defendant No. 1 for declaration of title and recovery of possession. That is how the present suit in O.S. No. 2616 of 2007 is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 2 to 5.

5. In O.S. No. 2616 of 2007, a comprehensive suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, after the written statement of defendants was filed, issues were settled, evidence on behalf of both the parties was let in and the evidence was closed on 20.11.2015. Thereafter, from 27.11.2015 onwards, the suit is being adjourned only for submission of arguments of both sides. At that stage, on 04.12.2015, the present application is filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. stating that the plaintiffs are the owners of residential plot bearing No. 71, admeasuring 190 Sq. yards in Survey Nos.272 and 273, situated at Bagh Hayathnagar Village with précise boundaries as mentioned in the schedule of property, whereas, the defendant No. 1 is denying the existence of the above boundaries. Hence, it is necessary to bring the facts before the Court and for that purpose, appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of suit schedule property is very much essential.

6. This application was resisted by the defendants who filed a detailed counter denying the petition averments stating that plaintiffs be put to strict proof of the allegations and the appointment of Advocate Commissioner is not necessary when the evidence otherwise is available on record. Plaintiffs have filed this petition only to drag on the matter. In a suit for declaration of title, it is for the plaintiffs to prove their possession and title based on oral and documentary evidence. The defendants have purchased the suit schedule property from its original owner who is a pattadar and the survey number of the plaintiffs and that of the defendants is different. It was also well established in the proceedings in the earlier suits in O.S. No. 870 of 2000 and O.S. No. 906 of 2000.

7. The suit in O.S. No. 870 of 2000 was filed by the plaintiffs herein as stated above. Having lost the original suit, the plaintiffs have filed appeal in A.S. No. 251 of 2006 and during pendency of the said appeal, as per the orders in I.A. No. 599 of 2007, it was withdrawn with a liberty to file separate comprehensive suit. Whereas, the suit filed by the defendant herein in O.S. No. 906 of 2000 was decreed against plaintiff No. 2 and it has attained finality.

8. The Court below after hearing both sides and on appreciation of the facts, arrived at a conclusion that as the defendants are denying the exis