The High Court · 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 all further proceedings in OS. No. 1 of 2016 on the file of the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet till disposal of this Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Ravi Chandra Bejjaram Counsel for the Respondent": Sri. G Ravindar The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CML REVISION PETITION No. 484 of 2o23 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggribved by the order dated 17.03.2021 passed in I.A.No.103 of 2018 irr O.S.No.1 of 2016 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, L,uxettipet at Luxe ttipet.

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record

3. The Suit vide O.S.No. 1. of 2016 is filed for cleclaration of title and recovery of possession by the petitioner/plaintiff against respondents / defendants. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner/plair.rtiff filed I.A.No. 103 of 20 18 to appoint and Advocate Commissioner. Respondents reported no counter and the trial Court after hearing both sides, d Lsmissed the application on 17 .O3.2021 . Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred this civil revision petition

4. Learned counsel for petitioner stated that the appointment of advocate commissioner is to demar,:ate the land for better adjudication of the dispute. The trial Court ought to .ffi 2 have allowed the application at least for the land in Sy.No.153. Petitioner is not a party to the W.P.No.11682 of 2O15 and the order of the said writ petrtion is against the authorities only. The remedy under common law and the writ jurisdiction and powers of civil court are entirely different. There is boundary dispute and the appointment of advocate commissioner is to lacilitate the Court for better adjudication. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

5. The suit is filed to declare the plaintiff as absolute owner ol the surt schedule property in Sy.No.153 admeasuring Ac.0.O5 guntas situated at Raindlaguda Shivar of Jannaram Mandal' In I.A.No.103 of 2018, it is stated that petitioner/ plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the land bearing Sy.No.153 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.O.05 guntas situated at Raindtaguda Shivar of Jannaram Mandal from Sri Mohammad Ahmed. through registered sale deed vide document No.2O13/2013, dated 12.06.2013 and he is in possession of the said property. Defendant No.1 Iiled wntten statement disputing his valid and lawful title and stated that suit schedule land is I I I i i i j i I i I i 3 the part of land in Sy.No. 154 and he got erected semi temporary shed and compound wall in Sy.No. 151. Defendant No.2 purchased the land bearing Sy.No. 153 mc rsuring to an extent to Ac. 1.20 guntas ancl also the land bearinrl Sy.No.l54 to an extent of Ac.3.20 guntas. Late Mohammed Buranucldin filed O.S.No.104 of 2OO7 and it was decreed exparte and respondent No.2 preferred an appeal and stated that the sulrject matter of the present suit is pertaining to Sy.No.154 anC the subject matter of the decree passed by the Court is pertaining to Sy.No.153.

6. The land in Sy.No.153 is bounded by PWD (lanal towards east side, West: land of Kudira Venkanna, Nortl r: Land of the vendor and South: R & B road Mancherial to Ninnal. The land of the plaintiff is situated at Sy.No.153. Thc contents of the suit in O.S.No. 104 of 2OO7 are dilferent from tht. present suit. Defendant No. 1 purchased the land in Sy.No. l 54 and both the lands are distinct and separate from each ot,'rer. plaintiff approached the District Collector requesting t,) survey and demarcate the lands in Sy.Nos. 153 and 15,1 and fix the I I ; ! I I i I I I 4 boundaries. The District Collector considered the request and directed the Assistant Director of the Survey and land records for surveying and demarcating both the lands in Sy.Nos. 153 and'154. The petitioner and respondent No.-l are not parties to the W.P.No. 11682 of 20 15 and stay orders were obtained against the revenue authorities and the authorities of the survey and land records. Therefore, requested the Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. 7 . Respondents reported no counter. Plaintilf filed the suit to declare him as owner of the property in Sy.No. 153 to an extent of Ac.O.05 guntas whereas defendants stated that the land is in Sy.No.154. Defendant No.1 in the written statement contended that the plan submitted by the plaintiff himself Sy.No. 153 is having the land in Sy.No.154 towards eastern side and after Sy.No.154, thc canal is situated. As per the sale deed alleged to have been purchased by plaintiff, towards eastern side canai is showed as boundary. He further stated that it is false to state that the land purchased by defendant No. 1 is in Sy.No. 153 in fact defendant No.2 is the absolute owner of the I I I I i I I \ \ 5 land in Sy.No. 154 and defendant No.2 alienatecl the same to others. Defendant No.1 purchased 4 guntas ol larid from them as such the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant No. I has occupied and constructed a shed inSy.No. 15tl is absolutely false. Defendant No.2 filed written statement vrith the same contentions. Late Mohammed Buranuddin artrl others Iiled O.S.No.104 oi 2OO7 to declare title over the suit Iand in Sy.No. 153 admeasuring Ac. 1.20 guntas and lte same was decreed exparte and the defendants in O.S.No. 10'L of 2007 were directed to restore the possession of the suil land to the plaintiffs. As the petitioner herein filed suit to cleclare him as owner and possessor of the suit schedule propert.,/, it is for him to establish the same by filing relevant <locunr,:nts and also adducing the oral evidence but filed an application to appoint an advocate commissioner, but what is to bc done by the advocate commissioner is not clearly ment ioned in the application. Therefore, this Court hnds that thc application is premature and if at all there is any requirement, petitioner is at liberty to frle another application with specitic cause for appointing of advocate commissioner. The tria I Court rightly 6 dismissed the application and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court. B. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the ordcr of the trial Court dated 17.O3.2O2I passed in I.A.No.103 of 20 18 in O.S.No. I of 2016. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SO/.A.SREENIVASA REDDY AS ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet at Luxettipet' 2. One CC to Sri. Ravi Chandra Bejjaram Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl Sri G Ravindar Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies MKN/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0210412025 ORDER CRP.No.484 ot 2023 t hE S 14 ,6. \-1, o o 24 Julrl ru5 * \: -., / 6t' : ( . /r7 THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED 1 q)A ,\ b