the possession of property. If, really, the respondent is trying to demolish the bathrooms lavatory and trees existing thereon of this petitioner/defendant, allegedly in the suit schedule property, the remedy available to this petitioner is elsewhere, but not in the present suit. Therefore, appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the existing physical features of suit schedule property and the construction of bathrooms lavatory and trees existing in the suit schedule property would amount to collection of evidence, which is impermissible in the suit filed for injunction simplicitor. In such circumstances, there is no need for appointment of advocate commissioner for collection of such evidence to find out the exact area of property in possession of the respondents in view of decisions reported in (i) Sagi Vijaya Ramachandra Raju and others v. Koppisetti Satyanarayana and others1 , (ii) Batchu Narayana Rao v. Batchu Venkata Narasimha Rao2 , (iii) Koduru Sesha Reddy v. Gottigundala Venkata Rami Reddy and others3 , and (v) Yenugonda Bal Reddy v. Manemma and others4 . In all the above four judgments, this Court consistently held that appointment of advocate commissioner, in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction or in a suit for injunction simplicitor, to note down physical features amounts to collection of evidence.
