The High Court · 2025

...Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiffs AND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Smt. Lakkakula Jayaprada,, Wo. Ramnara Household, Rl/o. College Road, Mancherial ...RespondenURespondenUDefendant yana, Aged about 52 years, Occ Town and District. Pamuku.ntla Hymavathi, Wo.-Rav-inder Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. H.No. 4-3416-1 , Bhooninagir, peddapalli -Town District. Guda.Krishna Rgqqy. Slq Ram Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 4-2-134110, Srinivasa Theaire, Peddapalli Town and District. Edumekala Ravi Kumar, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged about 3g years, Occ. Govt. Employee,_S/9, H.No 5-1 1, Khazipalli Viilage, Mutharahr (M) Mandat of Peddapalli District. Kothuri Srinivas, S/o. Kankaiah,.Aged about 30 years, Occ. Govt. Employee, R/o. H.No.1-65/8, Peddabonkur Village, peddapdlli Mandal and District. Egdqqpu tlqshqayi, Wo. Sathish, Aged about 36 years, Occ. House Hold, (o H No. 2-8412, Goureddipet, Raghavapur Village, peddapalti Mandal ancj District. Mula Anil, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about 36 vears. Occ. H.No. 2- 12212N1, Neerukulla Village, Sultanabad District. Pvt. Employee, R/o. Mandal, Peddapalli 8 I 10 11 12

13. 14 '15 16 17 '18 19 20 21 22 23

24. F1.j?k9!d Karthik, g/o Laxminarayana, Aged about 28 years, Occ. SCCL trmptoyee, R/o. H.No.g-4_239,.. seethanagar, Godavarikhani Town, Ramagundam Mandal, peddapalli Diatrict. 9gPly^-S"lqfnda..Chary,^S/o. Rajamouti, _Aged about 49 years, Occ. reacner, ruo. H.No. 6-96, Thadicherla Village, Malhar Rio Mandal, Jayashankar Bhoopalapalli District. ^V-enkat, p99$-a Prasumath.i, Wo. Reddy, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Govt. Emproyee, H/o. H.No. Z_22, Kunaram Village, Kalvasiirampur Mandal, Peddapalli District. Nugilla.Sindhu D/o. Mallaiah, Wo Thirupathi,Aged 25 yrs, Occ. House wife, R/o. H. No.2- 1 -29 1, Pragathinagar, peddApalli'To-wn anO Oistrict. Ko.lluri Las_umaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, ege! Q9 years-.Occ. Rtd. Employee, R/o. H.No. 4-3-216116tN1tA, Bhoomnagaf eeOOapJtti town and District. Batlapenumarthy Subrahmanyrn, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged 37 years, Occ. "in-a Business, R/o. H. No. 3-42t 4t A, Ran gampairi Vitiage, eioolphi ivr"ibr District. Mamidi Shireesh Kumar, S/o. Srinivas, Age! l7 years, Occ. Business, H.No. -beod'apaili M;"d;i;;; 2:.il14n, Opp tndian Oit pump, Rangam"paitiVif fige Diskict. Polam.Srinivas, S/o. Mallaiah,.Aged..31-years, Occ. pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No. 2-53, Appannapet Viilage, peddipaili UinOal'ana bisirict Bandari J Q.No.DB1 District. Xgthl,,-Yp, Raj .Kumar, Aged 47 years, Occ. Househotd, R/o. J /, Nagatahgadda, Ramavaram village, Kothagudem Mandal and - NyOql1r.. Malles-hwari, W/o. Maflaiah,. Aged_47 years, Occ. Household, R/o.H.No. 2-1-291 , pragathinagar, pedoapittiTown 'ria oi"tri"t. Anthad^upula Saroja, D/o. Rajaiah, Aged 42 years, Occ. Govt. Employee, R/o. No. 1 3-64. Bhaoathsinohnagir, Kyalhanapd,i viitage, M;;;#;ri, M;d;'i: Mancherial Distiict Muniganti Ravindra Chary, S/o. Narasimha Swamy, Aged 47 years, Occ. SCCL Emptoyee, e.No.' ND-zzsz Nagirjun" d"ror.iy,-rur.ri*'ViilI#, Mancherial Mandal and District. Bu{arapu Sathish, S/o. Gattaiah,Aged 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.2_ 84i2, Gouredd ipeta, Raghavapur Viilage, p6dd"]riliirirnort and District. Polam Sathish, S/o. Mallaia-h, Aged 36 years, Occ. pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No. 2-53, Appannapet Viflage, peddipaIi tt4inOa]'anO Oisiiict. Varukolu Sujatha, wo. srinivas,. Gu.ardian of varukoru Niharika, D/o. Srinivas, ASgd^:19 years, Occ. Student, Ryo.H.ruo.2_3_zi, rniti[nrsar, peoAapariiio*ri and District. xiJi,lii,"11%:tt,3l";,,,1?,i#'rxg,?""ifl ,J"?1i,3fr";03,?t,.Emp'ovee, . Kavitha., D/o. Rajamouli, 49"6 41 years, Occ. Govt. Emolovee. Bobbili R/o.H.No.2-3-.128, Bharathhagar, eeo;ipatii rd*i'rhjrii"tri"-tvi' E"'|v'v,vv, Y 25 f:lgpiltiAnit, S/o prabhakar, Aged 33 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H No.4_ zoJl / , trapuJlnagar, Raghavapur village, peddapalli Mandal and District. 26. Edumekala Ravi Kumar,..Q/o. Rajaiah, Aged 3g years, Occ. Govt. Employee, R/o H.No 5-1 1, Khazipaili Viilage, tuuihai'am (M) Mandai, Feaaipirii O[tiici. 27. Et?Pofqt l..priyanka,_Wo. lrlaresh, Aged 27 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. H.No.6-97, Elkalapatty Gate, palakurthi [Iandal, Peddapaili Diskict. 28. [gl'1pr:tni Jyothi, Wo. Anit, Aged 33 years, Occ. House Hotd, R/o. H.No.4- 263fl, Bapujinagar, Raghavapui Village, peddapaili Mandal and District. 29. !91!i [amyq.(rishna, Wo. Bandi Anit, Aged 29 yeirrs, Occ. House Hotd, R/o. 30. NyS1t1a.. Malleshwari, Wo. Mallaiah, Aged 47 yearc, Occ. Household, 290/1 , Pragathinagar, peddapalli Town ari'd District. R/o.H.No. 2-1-291, pragathinagar, peddap;lli Town ind district.

31. Municipal Commissioner, Peddapalli, peddapalli District. ...Respondents/Proposed respondents 2 to 3{ (Respondents 2 to 31 are not necessary parties in the above CRp) lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copies of Order dated 2g-11-2024 in l.A.No. 164 ot 2024 in l.A.No. 66 ol 2024 in l.A.No. 196 oI 2022 in O.S No. 39 ot 2022 on the file of the court of the Junior civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First class at Peddapalli, Peddapalli District. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S No. 59 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at peddapalli, peddapaili District, pending disposal of the above Revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER -fi HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY CTVTL REVISION PETITION No.28O of 2o25 ORDER This Civil Revision petition is hled under Article 227 of the Conslitution ol India aggrieved by the order, dated 2g.I1.2O24 passed in I.A.No.164 of 2024 in t.A.No.66 of 2024 in I.A.No. t96 of 2022 in O.S.No.59 of 2O22 on rhc file of the Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at peddapally, wherein the application hled under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking for appointment of Advocate Cornmissioner in I.A.No.66 of 2024 to notc dorvn the physical features of the suit land and the nature of the suit land with respect to the registered documents of the proposed respondents and regarding the breach of injunction with/without the assistance of a Mandal Surveyor in the presence o1' the petitioners and proposed respondents was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case art: that the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs, have filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, rectification of the entries in revenue records and also cancellation of the earlier passbook and title deed issued in the name of one Lakkakula ,_Iayaprada. It is further stated that along with the suit, the petitioners also filed I.A.No.196 of 2022 seeking 2 CVBR, J Crp 280,2025 to grant ad inteim injunction restraining the respondent and her family members, agents and servants etc. from alienating the suit schedule property and the trial Court has granted od inteim injunction. It is further stated that the petitioners also ltled I.A.No.66 of 2024 under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of C.P.C. seeking for detention of the defendant into civil prison as she has committed breach of ad inteim injunction order, dated 2O.O3.2O22. It is further stated that the land in Sy.Nos.898/ 1, 898/2 and a99 12 is in rectangular shape and all the lands are adjacent to one anoLher and the registered documents do not have clear extent of land and it is necessary to investigate properly at the ground level. As such, the petitioners hled an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No.66 of 2024 to note down the physical features c[ the suit land and the nature of thc land with respect to the registered documents of the proposed respondents. After considering the material on record, the trial Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that during subsistence of ex parte interirrr order, respondent No. t had alienated the suit schedule property. It is settled proposition or lav-lbat-al-dilelrly 3 CVBR, J C'rp 280_2025 an Advocate Commissioner shall not be appointed to collect evidence in support of or against any party. Therefore, the petitioners have to prove the case by producing oral and documentary eviclence as the dispute between the parties needs to be adjudicatecl u,ith reference to the evidence being produced by both the partics. Further, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is onl1, for local investigation or to note down physical features, if it is required for the purpose of elucidating the matter in dispute. In the instant case, the petitioners themselves stated that they requested for :rppointment of Advocate Contmissioner to note dou,n the physical featurcs of the land of the defendants. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order cloes not require any interference of this Court as there is no i egality or irregularify in the impugned order.

4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

5. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pcnding, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. L. LAKSHMI BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// To

1. The Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate PeddaPalli, PeddaPalli District' b"" cbl.'sri. Vadiakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy, Advocate [oPucl Two CD CoPies !.1 SECTIOT.T OFFICER of First Class at

2. 3. DUPR \ HIGH COURT DATED:31/0112025 ( q J o o 1 y{E STAI e' 2 0 u[\ 2025 t De.srarc'l .t/ c<'. y'' ?, ORDER CRP.No.280 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE C.R.P 5 /A 7rr,'