1 VadlakondaVenkatapathi, S/o Gangaram, Age_ 65 yeears otd, Occ_ Retd. Employee R/o- H.No. 1-3-215 v. Venkatapathi, Age_ 32 years, Occ

heH n'b Smt. ustlc Renuk Yara Civil Revis ion Petition No.663 of2025 Order: T'his is a Civil R.,ision pctition filed by the petrdoners /rcsp,ntlenrs aggtic'ed by the order datcd 21 .09.2024 passed b1.the lcarnecl Seniot (_ivil Judgc, Jagtral in I.A.No.44g of 2024 in o.S.No.16 of 2023, whcrein a pctition filed bv the rcspondents/petiuoners undcr Orclct 26, Rule 9 tcr appoint a. Ad'ocate c.mmissi.ncr to <lemarcatc thc lad i, Sv.No.l5.1 or 156, notc down thc phl sical fearures as well as its locarion to asccrtarn rhc suit suwey numbcr rvith thc assistancc of Mandal Sun cyor, has been allowed.

2. IIeard Sri Sath*k N{aku,ur., learned counsel fot the revisi', petirioncrs/rcspondents/defe'dants and Sri I(. Shanthan Rao, learneci counscl for rcspondents/petitioncrs/ plaintifFs. Perused thc record.

3. 'fhe respondents hercin filed suit for declaration of title and rcco\rcrv of posscssion with rcspcct to land in Sy.No.154 har,rng VLT H.No.1-5_ 203/79/1 admeasuring 818 sq.vds., sinrated at Ganeshnagar locality of Jagnal 'rown and District. The petitioners in thcrr wlinen statcnent \ \ ) 2 pleaded that thc surr larrd is situated in Sy No 156 and is not part and patcel of S.v.No.154 antl that thcy are not awzfe oI the teport given by the N{andal sui-vcyor s tating tliat tlre lan<] comcs unclct Sr' No'1-56 and no notice o[ survey is g'ivcn to thcm llr the N'landal SurvcYor rvhen the sLltre-\r was concluctc<l. Further, it is contended that the subiect land is house site but not agricultural ltn<I. The petitiorrers file d counter allegng that the Mandal Sur-veyor on thc (lirection oF the District ('ollector submittcd 2 report thar thc land comcs uncler Sv No- 1 56 'I'he tespondcnts file J a pctition ' 'rr 08.1,2.201.9 befrrre the (.ollector, Jagtial n Prajawant' aLrd in tutn' thc Collector comrnurricated thc samc to the Commissioner' Municipalitv' Jagtial and after thc directiorrs from the Collectot' thr Cornmissiontt' Murucipalin' insttuctcd thc l'own Planrung Scctlon (l'PS) of Jagual to thc sitc undcr disputc on bchalf of site N{unicipaliS', s'hctein,'lPS "r'cnt owrlers and in thc llrescncc of both parues' the 'llPS stopped the cons truc ti.o n rvork at plinth lcvel 'I'he rcspondeflts requested the District Collector to <litect thc Sut-vcvor to couduct thc sun'ct fur idenufication o[ the suncy number of disputcd lancl 'fhe tcspondent N'-r'2 6led buildiug petmission applicatron on 07' 1 1 2019 online arrd vcrification and inspection rvas done regarding the ownership documents' Iink documents ,,1 3 and boundanes as per thc documen$ and site. An oblecdon rvas raiscd by the respondents and thereforc, thc buildrng application was rctutncd. f,hc resPo,dents filed a writ pcriti.n r,rde w.p.No.26040 of 2019 bclorc this (-ourt lot inactron of rhe Commissioner, Jagtial Mdnicipalitl, on their objecrion pedtron datcd 0g. 1 1 .20 19. To ptove their contention, rhe petitronets have called for the report of the Mandal Sur-veyor. ,fhe A,Iandal Sun e\or report and its sketch map reveal that the suit scheclule propertv is locatcd in S1,'.No.156 rvhicl,r bckrngs to the petrtioners hercin. .fhe rcspondents are aware o[ thc \Iandal Surwel.or report and thercfrrre, clairned that the petition under revision is not maintainable.

4. Upon examining thc casc of both partics, the learnccl Trial (.ourt allorvecl the pctirion appoir-rti.g .\dvocatc Commissioner to notc do\\.n rhe physical features ar-rd to idcntily location of suit schcdulc property u,ith respcct to sun'cy numbcr, as such, thc present Revision peun.n is filed.

5. In grounds oF rcvision, the petitroners contenderl that there was aheady a survey conductcd at the bchest of the District Collector to determrne thc idcntity of the same propelry and said report was flrnished to thc respondents, however, said aspcct has not bcen dealt by the l .l.rial ) 4 Court. Further, it rs contended that it is well settled legal position that an application to appoint an Adr-ocatc Commissioncr unrlcr ()rder 2(r' Rule 9 oF Cpc cannot bc usccr r. c.llect or gcnefare frt:sh cvidencc i. the* favour. I he Ttial ( r rurl tlid nr rl considt r its own ordcr Jared l8 l] 2021 irr I_A.No.1g7 of 2023.whercin glant o[ rcmporar- injuncuon rvas dcrrrcd for failute to cstab]rsli prtma facic case C)n thc basis of tforcmentioned grounds, thc pctitloners praled that thc it'ipugned ortler llc set asidc'

6. During argulncl.rts tl tllc Rcvision Pctition' thcrt' t'ls an issuc abouf thc maintainabihq' oF thc ltevision Pctjtion as it hacl become irfrucruous lt is vehemently contended bv the learned counscl lor the rcvision pctitit-'ners lhal 2 nxsrcprcs( nlllion ul' mlJe rlr' rrtt lht revisi"rr 1l' tition Lrt coming infrrrctuous rvhen the Advocate Cornmissioner report wrs not submitted belote the Trial (butt ()rrlt upon trhng of the tevision llctitron' there rvas a I'rasty sun'ev coniluctecl and the report rvas subrnitted orr 02'05'2025 on1'v to defeat the rer-tston Petlflon

1. The learned counscl fot respondents pleaded that l.hcrc rvas no false reptesentadon about the tcvisron pe tidon becoming infrlrctuous' at best' a rcpresentaflon was made that the Aclvocate Commissioncr has complcted I 5 thc survey with the help of l\{andal Suncyor during pendcncy of the reusion pctition. It is vehemently dcnied that thc Nlandal Surveyor was influenced lor conducting the suwey of thc suit schcdule properry for thc sole purpose of defcating the rights of thc petitioncri under the present revision petition. Hou.cver, it is agrecd b,v both the counsel rhat the rcvision petition would becomc infructous on\r q4,r"r, the rcport is submittcd and n.r prior t. such an cvcnt. Since thc Civil Revision peution was liled much prior to the subrrission o[ the Advocate (_ommissioner report, rt is agreecl that the prcsent rcrisi,rfl pcUtr(,n is maintarnablc.

8. Coming to rhe mcdts of the casc of pcridoners, they represented that a survey o[ suit schcdule propertl' was conductcd at thc instance o[ rcspondcnts hcrcin. \X,'hen an application tor building pcrmission rvas submitted by them on 07 .11.2079, survcv was conductcd in that rcgarcl er the instance of this Corrrt demarcating rhe suir schedule property shor.."rng its location in Sy.No.156. liurther., refcrence is made to the order passed by thc Trial Court in I.A.No.19 of 2023 whercin the relicf sought for grant of temporary injuncuon has been dismissed for failure to show pdma facic case. In facg it is hcld that thc respondents have resofted to suppressiofl of material facts and havc approached the Court with unclean hands. F-urther, \ \ \ 6 the pctiuoncrs frlcd copy o I tl're affidavit fiied by thc rcspondcnts in \V.P.No.2(r040 ol 2019' In said u'rit pctition' the ptavcr \\'as to direct thc murucipaliq to takc necessan actiofl ageinst thc illegal consttuction in suit scheJult Pr( )perlt in Sv No l 5{'

9. Thc learnccl counsel for the revision petitioncrs refcrred to iudgmcnt of this Court betrvecu Dammalapati Satyanarayana and others r'' Datla Venkata Ramabhadra Raiu @ D'V'R'Raiu and anothetr rvlrerein' rt is ol- c{rrtlrr'\'eli\ illl(l fraln( hcld rhar "(.()uft hls t'r itlcrrrih lht trrcl 'lr(a -Ihc patties, in turn, havc to adduce tlral and clrcurnentan' necessarl'issues. evidence with reference to the issues, so framed Unlcss tlresc aspects are clcar, appointment of an Aclvocate ('ommrssioner rvould amount to an If the report is submittcd' evcn bcfore excrcise to gatiler cvidencc ' cvidence is adduced, a stagc mav comc' whetc thc lvhole trial would rcvolve around such rePort"'

10. f 'he learned counsel for tesponclents filccl rvrittcn arflumcl)ts to thc effcct that the suit is filed for declaration of title and recovery of posscssion, that the petitioners are ciairning land to be part and parcel of Sy.No.156 wheteas land is acn-raily in Sy'No'154 The petitionets are relying ' zooo (a) .rLo ols 7 upori the Mandal Surveyor Report of which no notice was given to the respondents. 'I'he existence of suit schcdule propcrft survey number 156 is not in the knowledge of rhe rcspondents and thereforc, said repott cannot be taken into considcration. An order rvas passecl in rhd impugncd LA tot appointmcnt o[ Advocatc. Cornmissioner and tep, rrt was sul>mittcd on

02.05.2025. In rvritten argumcnrs, it is contendcd that since the report is submittcd, the rcvision pctition has become infmctuous. In that rep;ard, refcrcnce is madc to order of this Court in (-.R.P.No.761 of 1956, u.herein, it is hcld that the question as to \L,hen a (,ommissroncr could be appornted should bc within the wide discrction of thc Trial (-ourt, but it cannot bc said that no Commrssioner could be apporntcd before rhc issues are ftamed or thc cvidence is lcd. A furthcr rclerence is made to judgmcnt of this Court in CNIA Nos.52 and 53 of 2020, rvhcrcin, this Court hcld that localization of suit schcdulc properry cannot be rcfused.

11. 'I'he leatned counscl for respondents refcr{cd to thc ordet of this Coutt in CRP No.572 of 2023, rvherein, it is hcld that there is no icgal embargo on appointment of Advocatc Comrnissioner in a suit [ot bate injunction where thete is a serious disputc rvith regard to thc identity and Iqcalizatio.r of suit schedule land and that an Advocate Commissiooer can 8 a be appointed at anv s tage of the suit A furthct reference ls made to the order of this Court in ( -]llr No 2567 of 2022' rvhctein' it rs held that therc Commissionet bcfrrte is no spcciFrc bat lor appoinlrrent of an '\dvocatc cot ncncement of trral or framing of issucs

12. In the instant case, the dispute betu'cen the partics arose in thc year 2019 wlicn thc rcsponclents hercin alleged that thc peutiorrers atc making illcgal consttuction tn thcit Iand which is krcared in Sr''No'154 In that centc\t, a complatnt t'as give Lr to f agti:rl rnunicipalin' tr I txkc acti()n agrinsl thc petitioncrs l'retcin. \i(hen no action s'as taken' tirc resporrclcnts approached rhts Court vide l( P No'26040 of 2019 and oLr that' sufl/e\r was concluctcd through the lvlandal Sun'cvclt and salcl report citmt: in fal'or'rr of thc pctiuoners and against thc respondents to thc cffcct that tlie drsputed lancl is located in Sy.No'156 which belongs to thc pctitt()oets hercin and not il S,v.No-154 as claimed by the respontlcnts hercin' 'I'hcreaftcr'' a cilil suit was filcd vide O.S No 16 of 2023 seeking declaranon of title and recovery o[ posscssion. In the said suit' no telerence is n:radc to thc Prior litigation with respect to filing of writ petidon or its disposal and allegatitin is made that thc petitioners hetein have forcibly dispossessed the {, I i I I I I I I 9 respondents from the suit land ot 05.03.2023 and therefore, suit is filed for declaration of title and recovery oF possession.

13. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed b1, this (_ourt at the instancc of thc respondents herei. atrd a rep.rt is subrnittecl, which shows that thc suit schedule properry is situated in Sy.No.156. 1.he said rcport was submittcd by the lUandal Sun-cyor Ii Raju. As per sard rcpott, rhc suit schedule properry is shown as locatcd in Sv.No.156 ancl nor in Sy.No.154 as claimed by thc rcsponde,ts hercrn. 'rhen the suit is frrcd i, rhc year 2023 having made unsuccessful clforts to stop thc construction of dre petitioncts in the suit schedule propcrty by way of grving complainr to thc commissioner, Jagtral N{uniciparin and 6ling of rvrit peuri,n. Thc suit is filed by complctely suppressinlJ thc Facts rclatrng to rhe eatlier litrgadon bcforc this Court. The respondenrs by suppressing tle report submittcd in I the rvrit petition got the Advocatc (_ommissioner appointcd in the suit by filing the I.A under revision [or fresh survey and new suwcy report shows that thc location oF the sr t schedulc properr), as partly in Sy.No.156 and pardy in Sy.No. 154. / / \ (. 10 (i 1,+. I t is afl ironr, that thc sarne N{an<lal Surwcyot who submitted thc datcd 04.1.2.2019 in the writ pefltlon also conducted the surr,rcy rePoft surwcl, through Advocate Commissioncr appointed bv rhc 't'tial ('ourt vide irnpug'ned order ancl submitted a diffcrcnt repoti uth rcspect to location of the suit schedulc proPerw C)nly whcn thc petitioncrs l-retcin insi'sted that there is aLr eat'licr sulev tePort rvhich was condrrcfccl at the lllstaflce of the tcsprlndents ancl that second sur-vey is conductcd onlv to create cr.rrlctncc in far,gur 6[ t]rc resp6ndents, the samc is denictl allegng that the respondcnts do not have knowledge about thc sur"'cv report rvhicl'r is subrnittcd earhcr. 'I'his court is of the considercd opition that it is the rcspondetts rvho liave initiated litiganon against the Petitioners bv gving complaint to the Cor nissioncr, Jagtial municipality' filed s'rit Pctitlofl and suffered adycrsc gtcler as the sun'ev rcport rvas against thcm l {ar''ing suiferccl aclr.etse orders, thc rcspondents have initiated sectlnd rrltrnd rlf litigation bv fiiing a civil suit sceking dcclatauon of utlc and ttc')\ cr\' ')l' posscsslol-I

15. When thc earLicr surwcy rcport is against theit intcrcst' a pctrt1ofl ls \ thc rcspr,rndents fot appointment of Advocate Cornmissioncr to fried \ create fresh evidence to support their case' t*/hcn thc samc N'landal /I l1 Surveyor conducted two surveys, one at the instance of this Court and onc at the instance of civil court and grvcs two different reports, the gentuncness of the reports has to bc doubted. In the instant case, in casc, the earlier report was in favour of respondcnts, they rvorlld not har.e denicd knowledge and instead, would havc relied upon rhe said report ro scek declaratton. C)nIy when the eadier Mandai Survey report is not in their favour, the respondents suppressing thc car'licr survev report g()t an t\dvocate Commissioner appointcd through thc impugnccl ordcr to crcetc frcsh cr,rdence

16. 'I'he sequcnce of events do not inspire confidence in the casc o[ respondents as they have not only suppressed thc existence of cathcr Nlandal Sur-r..cyot li.eport but are choosing to rely upon rhe sccond mandal Surveyor Report only to suit their purpose. Said aspcct was flor consrdered l;v the Trial Coutt. Whilc the'fril Court has concluded there is no prima facie casc in favout of the respondents, has erroncously appointed an Advocate Commissionet giving scopc for crcation of fresh evidcnce which cafl come to thc aid o[ the tespondents. The same l\{andal Surveyor conducted survey of the samc suit schcdule propertv at rrvo different points of time giving two different repotts wrth respect to location ol thc IZ 6 suit schedulc proPertl' in diffetent survcy numbers and dre same ratses serious doubt about is conduct

17. In anr casc, in view of existcncc of the eatlier l\I:Lndal Sr'tn'e''or I(cport, tletc was no necd for conducting a sccohd 5u1vs1"\s such' thcre arc no mcdts in thc order passe.l by the trial Court and thc same is Litble tcr be sct asidc

18. Irr thc rcsult, thc impugrcd order dated 21 '09 2024' ln l '\'No'148 2024 in ( ).S.N<1.1(l ot 2023, on the flle of the leatned Senicrr Cir,ii |udgc, .jagtial, is sct aside ancl the (livil Revision Petition is allowed' As a sequcl, N'liscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, stend disposcd of as ir {tructu<tus I I SDl- T.SRINIVASA REDDY A ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// i \, \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial. 2. One CC to SRl. SATHVIK MAKUNUR Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. KOLUGURI SHANTHAN RAO Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies PSL M, HIGH COURT DATED:1 210912025 ORDER CRP.No.663 of 2025 ..i:,. ,.,:'.\ s $ \' 4 +.:.! \ i '' ',', 'r- ::- ';. !i .. ., a,l L',. 1 ,:7 .i( ('- lI i \i '- ,'- \: ALLOWING THE CRP E \