The High Court · 2025

...Petitioner / Defendant No 1 ...Respondent No 1 / Plaintiff

2. S. Sahadev Reddy, S/o Late Laxmikanth Reddy Aged about. 59 years, Occ. Agriculture (VRO) Rio. Veerapur village, Kulkacherla Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

3. S. Mahadev Reddy, S/o Late Laxmikanth Reddy, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Veerapur village, Kulkacherla Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not necessary to the present petition) ...Respondent Nos 2 and 3 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 stay of all further proceedings in lA No. 54 of 2019 in OS No. 23 of 2009 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Vikarabad at Parigi. Counsel for the Petitioner Sri P Shiva Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No 1 Sri V Ramakrishna Reddy The Court made the following Order: / HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITTON No.463 ol 2o25 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 222 ol the Constitution ol'India aggrieved by the order, dated, 24.0I.2025, passed in I.A.\o.54 ol 2019 in O.S.No.23 of 2OO9 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Parigi, Vikarabad District, wherein the application filed under Order XXVI Ruie 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to get the land in Sy.No.137 of Veer:rpur Vi[age, surveyed with the help of Mandal Survevor, was erllow,ed.

2. Petitioner is dclendant No.1, respondent No.1 is the plaintifF and respondcnr Nos.2 and 3 are defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.23 of 2OO9. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred [o as arrayed in the suit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that initially the plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction and subsequently, the suit prayer was amended for declaration and recovery of possession. When defendant No.1 clisputecl the extent and boundaries, the plaintiff madc an applicr,rtion bcforc the Tahsildar, Kulkacherla seeking for demarcation of S1z.I\6. 137 and when the Tahsildar refused to 2 CVBR, J Crp_463 2025 direct the Surveyor on the ground that defendant No. t had objected for survey, the plaintiff filed W.p.No.3 6986 of 2O7T before this Court and the said writ petition was subsequently .withdrawn. As the Tahsildar did not come forward to survey the land, the plaintiff hled I.A.No.54 of 2olg seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner to get the subject land surveyed with the help of Mandal Surveyor. Defendant No. 1, who is the revision petitioner herein, filed counter-affidavit stating that the plaintiff had created false sale deed, uide document No.63g of 2008, dated 05.03.20O8 mentioning false boundaries and basing on the said sale deed he has instituted a suit initially for perpetual injunction and pending adjudication of the said suit, having realised that the suit schedule property was not described properly, has fiied an application seeking for amendment of the prayer and converting the injunction suit into declaration suit and also filed an application seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to get the land surveyed with the help of Mandal Surveyor. After considering the material on record, the trial Court allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by defendant No. 1. 3 CVBR, J Crp 463_2025

4. Learnecl counsel for the revision petitioner/ defendant No.1 would submit that the suit is flled in the year 20O9 and the said suit is posted for recording the evidence of the defendants and the present petition is filed only for collection of evidence in support of the contentions raised in the piaint and therefore the appiication filed for appointment of an advocate-commissioner to conduct survey with the help of Mandal Surveyor at this stage is not main tainable.

5. On careful examination of the impugned order w6u1d reveal that the trial Court relying upon the judgments ol the Apex Court in Haryana Waqf Board us. Shantt Sarup and Othersl has specifically observed that to resolve the disputes regarding the extent and boundaries and for adjudication of the suit for declaration and recovery of possession effectively the appointment of Advocate-Commissione-r is necessary for the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. It is settled law that the Advocate Commissioner can be appointed only for identihcation of the property and its localisation and if any report submitted by the advocate commissioner, the same would not come in the wav of the trial tooelsy scc ozr 0 I \ a) 4 CVBR. J Crp 463 2025 Court to decide the disputes among the parties. Further, the defendants in the suil are having a right to hle their objections before the trial Court if they are aggrieved by the Advocate Therefore, this Court deems it Commissioner's report. appropriate to dispose of this C.R.P. granting liberty to the revision petitioner/ defendant No. 1 to file his objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner before the trial Court and in the event of objections, if any, I-rled, the trial Court is directed to examine the said report and pass appropriate ord5:rs before deciding the suit on merits.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of There shall be no order as to costs. 8 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// ASS T sd/- N. sRrHARl NT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The Junior Civil Judge, Parigi, Vikarabad District One CC to Sn P Shiva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri V Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies VA/gh I I i I HIGH COURT DATED:1410212025 t t ORDER CRP.No.463 ot 2025 it/) \, .) ( ',(- QA 2 5 iii 2025. * .tl r: S 2ATCH t .-.l o( >z ^ DISPOSING OF THE CRP f (