The discretion of appointing an Advocate Commissioner under CPC does not equate to gathering evidence; it serves to resolve disputes of property boundaries effectively.

The Court made the following Order:

The 1^st respondent in the Revision Petition is the plaintiff, who filed a suit in O.S.No.496 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, against the Revision Petitioners herein and others stating inter alia, that originally the plaint schedule property admeasuring Ac.1.15 cents was owned by Smt.Gangabathula Sooramma, who purchased the same through registered Sale Deed dated 15.02.1966 and on her demise, the said land was devolved upon her son one Mr.Gangabathula Gandhi and on his death, the same was devolved upon his eight children by way of succession, that they got divided their land into house plots and the 1^st respondent purchased Plot Nos.7 & 8 through Registered Sale Deed and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The revision petitioners are contesting the said suit.

2. Initially, the 1^st respondent sought relief of permanent injunction and subsequently sought amendment of the relief for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The learned Trial Court formulated the issues. Subsequently, in view of the amendment of the plaint seeking declaration of title and possession, additional issues were framed.

3. While so, the 1^st respondent / plaintiff filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C.’), seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure the properties of both the parties by fixing its boundaries in respect of their documents with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor and to draw a plan and to file a report before the Court. The said application was resisted by the petitioners herein by filing counter. They, inter alia, pleaded that the petition was filed for gathering evidence through Commissioner’s report, that it is very difficult to identify the suit schedule property and that it is not the stage to appoint the Commissioner.

4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, after considering the submissions made on behalf of both sides, allowed the application and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to measure the property of both the parties as per their documents with the assistance of Mandal or any licensed surveyor.

5. Aggrieved by the said order of appointment of Advocate Commissioner, the petitioners / respondents-defendants filed the present Revision Petition.

6. Mr. P.Rajasekhar, learned arguing counsel for the petitioners / defendants made submissions, inter alia, that the order under challenge is not sustainable as the Court below failed to consider the matter in the correct perspective. Referring to the prayer sought for in the application, he submits that the initial burden lies on the 1^st respondent / plaintiff to establish his title over the plaint schedule property and that identification of the same cannot be assigned to the Advocate Commissioner and the order under revision which would enable the 1^st respondent to gather evidence, is not tenable in Law. He submits that at the stage of trial or fag end of the trial, an application can be filed, if any clarification is required and the Court has to record its satisfaction, though it has power to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. He submits that the learned Trial Judge did not record his satisfaction and in such circumstances, the order under revision is liable to be set aside. Relying on the decisions in 1) Batchu Narayana Rao v. Batchu Venkata Narasimha Rao , 2010 (5) ALD 83 , 2) Papasani Sankara Reddy v. Kandula Hanumantha Reddy & Others, 2013 (4) ALD 322 , 3) Koduru Sesha Reddy v. Gottigundala Venkata Rami Re