ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/respondent against the order dated 01.12.2021 in I.A.No.145 of 2021 in O.S.No.262 of 2018 on the file of the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur.

2. I.A.No.145 of 2021 is filed under Order 21 Rule 9 CPC by the defendant to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note the existing tombs in the suit schedule property, the crop of eucalyptus (jam oil trees) therein raised by the petitioner, also to note other physical features, draw a plan, take photographs of the tombs and the crop at the time of the execution of the warrant and file a report.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner/defendant contended that the defendant has been in the schedule property for more than 50 years from the time of the predecessors in title and crops have been raised by them. It is also contended that the tombs of Palle Aseervadam, who is father in law of the petitioner, Palle Isreal, who is the husband of the petitioner, Palle Arogyamma, who is the mother in law of the petitioner, Palle Saranamma, Palle Visranthamma, and B.Rajaratnam who are the blood relatives of the husband of the petitioner are existing in the suit schedule land. It is also contended that the petitioner has raised eucalyptus (jam oil trees) in the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents which is aged about 2 months before filing of this petition on 18.12.2020. In that context, the petitioner sought appointment of a Commissioner.

4. The respondent/plaintiff resisted the petition by filing counter denying the contentions of the petitioner and further stating that the relief claimed is obviously for collection of evidence which is impermissible and that the application is premature as per the decision of this High Court in G.Nagabushanam Vs T.Eswaramma; Thalla Sulochana Vs Thalla Isaq and another; Yenugonda Bal Reddy Vs Manemma and others and Dammalapati Satyanarayana and others Vs Datla Venkata Ramabhadra Raju. The respondent further contended that he filed the suit for injunction simplicitor and the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his case that he has been in possession of the suit schedule property and that the defendant is interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. It is further contended that the plaintiff filed his title deed to prove right in the schedule property and also filed pattadar pass books, title deed books, adangal pahani and 1B namoona all that categorically prove that the plaintiff has title and possession of the schedule property, whereas the defendant did not file any documentary proof of title or possession. It is also contended that appointment of an advocate Commissioner at the instance of the defendant (plaintiff sic) is a rare phenomena and the practice adopted by the petitioner would be misuse of process of Court and preventing the trial Court from proceeding with the trial. Thus, the respondent/plaintiff prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court allowed the petition and appointed a Commissioner to note the existing tombs contended by the petitioner, the crop in the schedule property and directed to take photographs and file the report.

6. Having aggrieved by the order, the revision petition is filed on almost the same grounds which are taken in the counter.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the grounds as raised in the counter.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court has given valid reasons for allowing the petition. She further submitted that a Commissioner in a suit for permanent injunction cannot be appointed to fish out the evidence but he can certainly be appointed to collect the evidence as held by this High Court in the case of Shameem Begum V Vennapusa Chenna Reddy and another 1 and placed reliance on observations at paras 4 to 6 therein is held as follows:

4. The impugned dismissal or