Order:

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 04.01.2022 passed in IA No.436 of 2021 in OS No.270 of 2017 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda.

2. Petitioner herein filed OS No.270 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda, for the following reliefs.

“(a) for declaration of title of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property i.e., CFGH of plaint plan and for possession of the same;

(b) for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the structures of bed-concrete i.e., UFXH, compound wall i.e., DTVW and “Kollagudu” i.e., Y of plaint plan within the time allowed by the Court, failing which to permit the plaintiff to remove the same through the process of the Court.

(c) for a prohibitory permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her heirs, successors, assignees etc., from allowing to flow any waste water, drain water or rain water from her site and building into the site of the plaintiff i.e., into the plaintiff’s site on his western side.”

3. Pending the said suit, IA No.436 of 2021 was filed for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to make local inspection of the suit schedule site with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor to take measurements of sites of both parties with reference to their gift deeds and to find out the encroachments and other structures between the site of the petitioner/plaintiff and the site of the respondent/defendant and note down physical features and to draw sketch with reference to the plaint plan and to file his report in the Court.

4. By an order dated 04.01.2022, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge allowed the said IA in part only to the extent of appointing an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property. The Advocate-Commissioner was directed to execute the warrant after issuance of notices to both the parties and to answer work memos, if any filed by both the parties and file his report by 17.01.2022. Aggrieved by allowing the in part, the present CRP has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.

5. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondent nor is there any representation made on her behalf.

6. Heard. Perused the material on record.

7. The only contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petition was filed praying to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge has allowed the said IA in part by appointing the Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features without the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, despite the fact that the same is mentioned in the written statement filed by the respondent herein wherein she categorically stated to the extent that appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor is essential to know the actual picture of the properties of the plaintiff and the defendant and to better adjudication of the suit on hand.

8. The suit is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking various reliefs viz. declaration of title, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. It is settled proposition of law that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to gather evidence for or on behalf of a party to the suit, and it is for the party concerned to establish its case. Necessity of appointment of a Commissioner would arise if the Court feels that inspection and further enquiry is necessary having regard to facts of each case. In the facts of the case, the trial Court rightly appointed the Advocate Commissioner to note down physical features of plaint schedule property. However, it refused to provide assistance of Mandal Surveyor. However, for effective execution of the warrant by the Advocate Commi