1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was directed against the order dated 12.3.2020 passed in I.A.No.2144 of 2019 in O.S.No.445 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, wherein and whereby the trial Court allowed the said I.A. filed by the respondent / defendant seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner.2. The facts germane for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition, in nutshell, are that the revision petitioner filed the suit against the respondent for perpetual injunction contending that the respondent is interfering with its possession. Upon institution of the suit, the revision petitioner was granted an adinterim injunction in its favour. While the things stood thus, the respondent filed I.A.No.2144 of 2019 in O.S.No.445 of 2018 to survey the suit schedule property i.e. land in Sy.No.352/A1 admeasuring Ac.1-20 guntas situated at Nandigama village and to verify the survey number and demarcate the suit schedule property along with the respondent’s land in Sy.No.352/A2 admeasuring Ac.1-20 guntas with the help of Mandal Surveyor and village map. The revision petitioner contested the said petition. However, upon considering the material available on record and the contentions of both sides, the trial Court allowed the said I.A appointing an Advocate Commissioner for the said purpose. Hence the present Civil Revision Petition.3. Heard Sri Muddu Vijai, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner / plaintiff and Sri Laxminarayana Alishetty, the learned counsel for the respondent / defendant and perused the record.4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner / plaintiff submitted that the trial Court cannot appoint advocate commissioner in the suit filed by the revision petitioner for injunction to collect evidence or to ascertain the possession of any of the parties over the suit schedule property. He further submitted that the respective parties have to establish their possession over the suit schedule property basing upon their evidence. He further submitted that the impugned order clearly amounts to collection of evidence regarding possession of the parties. It is his further submission that the impugned order does not establish any finding showing the reasons on the basis of which the trial Court arrived at a conclusion to allow the petition filed by the respondent / defendant. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has relied upon the ratio laid down in Arvind Kumar Agarwal vs. Legend Estates (P) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Partner, Kokapet Village, Ranga Reddy District (2015 (2) ALT 484) and Chekuri Lavanya vs. Kalidindi Ravi Kumar Verma (2015 (5) ALT 329).5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent / defendant submitted that the revision petitioner is illegally trying to construct a compound wall on the land of the respondent which is abutting the revision petitioner’s land, though in a different survey number and distinctly identifiable on ground. Thus, under the garb of ad-interim injunction orders, the revision petitioner itself is trying to encroach upon the respondent’s land, which forced the respondent / defendant to file a petition seeking to appoint Advocate Commissioner and the trial Court has rightly allowed the petition, which does not warrant interference of this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the ratio laid down in Haryana Waqf Board vs. Shanti Sarup (2008) 8 SCC 671), Badana Mutyalu vs. Palli Appalaraju (2013 (5) ALD 376), and Smt. P. Sreedevi vs. IVLN Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Prasad (2020 (4) ALT 433 (DB) (TS).6. Now the point for consideration is can there be an order of appointing Advocate Commissioner in the suit for injunction.7. POINT: Admittedly, the lands of both parties are abutting each other and they are in equal extents. The land of the revision petitioner is situated in Sy.No.351/A1, whereas the land of the respondent is situated in Sy.No.352/A2.8. No doubt, normally in a suit for injunction simplicitor, the court cannot appoint advocate commissioner since it would amount to collection of evidence in favour of one of the parties. But when there is a specific dispute with regard to the boundaries, and one party is trying to encroach upon the other party’s land, the Court can appoint advocate commissioner in order to put a quietus to the litigation. When this Court has questioned the learned counsel for the revision petitioner / plaintiff as to whether the plaintiff under the garb of injunction orders is encroaching the land of the respondent / defendant on the Northern side of the boundaries indicated in the suit schedule, the learned counsel specifically denied that he is not encroaching. Thus it can be construed that the revision petitioner / plaintiff is not encroaching nor has any interest upon the property of the respondent/defendant.9. Even according to the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in Arvind Kumar Agarwal case (1 supra), in cases where there is a serious dispute regarding identity of the property or boundaries thereof, an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed even in the suits filed for injunction. Moreover, in a suit for mere injunction, the prayer would be to restrain the other party from interfering with its possession over the suit schedule property. Here, the case of both parties is that their properties are situated in two different survey numbers. In the case on hand, the contention of the respondent / defendant is that the revision petitioner itself is trying to construct a compound wall in his property, which is in a different survey number. Therefore, the intention of the Court below in appointing the advocate commissioner is to demarcate the two different survey numbers, but not to ascertain or cause any enquiry as to who is in possession of which property. Therefore, it does not amount to collection or fishing of evidence. Nowhere in the counter affidavit filed before the court below nor in the grounds of revision or the affidavit, has the revision petitioner asserted that it is not encroaching upon the land of the respondent /defendant. As rightly observed by the trial Court in the impugned order that when there is an attempt on the part of one of the parties to alter the physical features of the suit schedule property and it is necessary to take note of the same, it is always open to the court to appoint a commissioner for inspect

ion of the suit schedule property with the help of the Tahsildar / Mandal Surveyor and village map.10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order appointing Advocate Commissioner does not suffer from any irregularity or impropriety, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall also stand dismissed.