The High Court · 2025

1 M/s Sri Venkatagiri Developers,, 2-9-47,Shivaji Road,Kamreddy, Rep.By its Managing Partners 2 Punna Rajeshwar S/o Balaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ.Business. H.No.5- 3-456 Vidya Nagar Colony, Kamareddy Town.

3. Eppa Snnrvas, S/o Narsimulu, Aged about 40 years, Occ.Business. H No. 5- 2-197|C, Vikas Nagar Colony, Kamareddy.

4. Chigulapally Srinivas, S/o Pandari, Aged about 56 years, Occ.Business, R/o. H.No.5-3-1 75/403, Vidyanagar Colony, Kamareddy Town. ... Res pondents/Plai ntiffs lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 of 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 includrng trial of suit in O.S.No.292 of 2021 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First Class Magistrate at Medak pending disposal of Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI ASRA KHANAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI NYSHADHAM CHANDR , SEKHAR The Court made the following: ORDER I I i I I I I I I l I i i THE HON'BLE ]USTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.667 of2023, ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking the following relief. be pleased to set aside the decree and order in I.A.No.6B3 of 2022 tn I.A.No.938 of 2022 in O.S.No.292 of 2021 dated 23/ l/2O23 passed by The Honourable Principal Junior Civil .ludge Cum ludicial First Class I,lagistrate at Medak by allowing Crvrl Revision Petition as prayed For and pass...."

2. Heard Sri Asra Khanam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Nyshadham Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court ought to have allowed I.A.No.6B3 of 2022 (appointment of commissioner) in I.A.No.93B of 2022 in O.S.No.292 of 2021, on the ground that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents-plaintiffs for appointing the advocate commissioner to demarcate the land and fix the boundaries in Sy.Nos.1417, 1449, 1474, L4L5, 7416, 1450 and 1285 of Ramayampet Village, in vie-w-of the fact that petitioner is the neighbouring owner of the respondents-plaintiffs. The learned trial Court failed to ) appreciate the contentions raised by the petitio r rr and grossly erred in clismissing the application for af )ointment of commissioner. The learned trial Court ought no: to have come to a conclusion that the petitioner-defendant anc respondents- plaintiffs were divided by land in Sy.No.1416, wh: is not a party to the suit. In the absence of the owner I the land in Sy.No.1416, being a party to the suit, the said I nd cannot be measured, added to it, the suit schedule pr: )erty is only 1081 sq.yarcs and prays to set aside the impugnec order

4. Learned counsel for the respondents subnis that suit is filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for perpetual it unction to an extent of 1081 sq.yards in Sy.No.1285, 1414, 1! t5, 1450 and 1453 with specific boundaries and it is the respor ( :nts-plaintiffs who has to prove the interference of the petition( -s-defendants in the suit for perpetual injunction. The learned l.ial Court has properly appreciated the facts and rightly : smissed the application, no interference is called for and pra y rd to dismiss the same

5. Heard learned counsels on record and perused/Ahe material . 3

6. Now the point for consideration is: whether the order passed by learned Principle lunior Civil Judge at Medak in LA.No.683 of 2022 dated 23.0t.2023, suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so requires interference of this Court or

7. Respondents- pla intiffs Nos.1 to 3, have filed suit for perpetual injunction in respect of open plot bearing No.36 part to an extent of 157 sq.yards, plot No.37 an extent of 307 sq.yards, plot No.38 an extent of 295 sq.yards and plot No.39 an extent oF 318 sq.yards, the total extent is 10Bl sq.yards in Sy.Nos.12B5, 74L4, 14L5, 1450 and 1453 with specific boundaries. It is stated in the plaint that the petitioner-defendant tried td interfere over the suit schedule property on 05.12.2021, which led in filing the suit for perpetual inju nction. B. Petitioner who is the defendant in the suit has filed his written statements and contended that the respondents- pla intiffs are trying to encroach into the petitioner-defendant land situated in Sy.No.1417 and 1449, total to an extent of 18.35 guntas which is abutting respon d ents- pla intiffs land on the western side and northern side \

9. On pe:rusal of the affidavit filed in I.A.No.:\3 of 2022, the prayer made in the application for appointment,f commissioner is to appoint the advocate commissioner to derr trcate the land in Sy.No.1417, 7449 of Ramayampet Village ar 1 Mandal, with suit survey numbers of the respondent; plaintiffs i.e., Sy.Nos.1414, 1415, 7416, 1450 and 1285 c Ramayampet Village.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has dra,r i the attention of this Court to .the tonch map, which is filed rlong with the material. The tonch map goes to show that t re land of the defendant is in Sy.No.14L7 & 1449 and counse rontended that

1.30 guntas is vanished and it is just and propr: to appoint an advocate commissioner by set asiding the orde, passed by the learned trial Court.

11. As the suit is filed by the respondents-plairt Ts for grant of perpetual injunction, it is the plaintiffs who hav: to prove their position as on the date of filing of the suit and thr: the petitio ne r-d efenda nt. The learned tr; appreciated the contentions raised by the counse s nterference of r Court has on record and passed a.;e_asoned order by giving cogent reason in Pay-11 of ) its order and dlsmissed the application for appointment of Commissioner.

72. Petitioner has sought for demarcation of Sy.Nos.14L7 and 1449, which is not part of the plaintiff schedule property. There are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition, deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

13. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without cost. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed SD/. L LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ /ITRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak 2. One CC to Sri Asra Khanam, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Nyshadham Chandra Sekhar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies d AB K/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 2610912025 ORDER CRP.No.667 of 2023 DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS 0)e3 L,! ) I i i I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I i I I I I I I I j I I I i I I i I i ,, 'o o -t- :-r,_ E sEi-- \_1 I1 (

1. ( i8 ?02 2 HrFt :- r:Q. ':r;'