ORDER :

Heard Ms.Harika Tejavath, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Pavan Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the. Perused the material available on record.

2. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner assailing the order, dated 16.07.2025, passed in I.A.No.116 of 2023 in O.S.No.222 of 2020 by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

3. Vide the impugned order, the trial court has rejected a petition filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to undertake local inspection and note the physical feature of the suit schedule property.

4. Upon perusal of the pleadings and also considering the reasons assigned, this Court is convinced of the fact that the trial court has passed a reasonable order taking into consideration the fact that there was no dispute prima facie so far as identification of the two properties i.e., Plot Nos.335 & 336. The learned trial court has gone to the extent of saying that by way of appointment of Advocate Commissioner, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to acquire and lead fresh evidence which is n