The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE NARSING RAO N,C {DIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.881 of2)19 ORDER: This Civil Revis;on Petition is filcd b,y thc petitiort - under Articte 227 of the Constitution of India again.st ,.1 : order, dated 2; l2.2olg passed in I.A.No. 1 179 ol 2Ola in O.S.No.274 of 20 18 on thc hle f learnecl principal Junior CiviI Judge, Sangareddy.

2. The briel facts of the case are that the petitioner-pl .intiff herein filed a suit i.e . o.S.No.274 of 2018 seeking rclieI for granrrng p: rnanent injunction and restraining the delendants and their men and age r ts from interfering with the peaceful and enjoyment of the plaintifls suit s<:lL, iule progrerty.

3. It is stated that the petitioner/ ptaintiff is rhe rr solute olr,ner and posse ssor of land bearing S1,.No.333 extent Ac.O. 1. j gts., situated at Rajampet, Sangareddy Town and District and out of :l e said extent, the petitior-rcr/ plaintifl had made the same rnto plots and so ( away the same b_v retaining an area of 333.51 sq.vds on the north-east c: :rer. The persons, w.ho have purchased the said plots, constructed residert in pcaceful possession enjoyment oI the same. Cr respondent/ defendant came to the suit schcdule pr handedly removed boundary stones and filled the m: al houses and are

25.O7.2078 the roerty and high- 'um and tried to occupy the said plot by raising the boundary dispute. Th,: retitioner/ plaintiff rvith the help of friends and-rvell u,ishers could resist tLr :llegal acts of the respondent/ defendant. Hor,vever the respondent/ defen<l; i 1 threatened that l I I 2 NN& J C.R.P No.881 of 2O19 shc u'ould come agail-I to occup]'the suit land and as such, the petitioner/ plaintilf trled the suit against the resp-'ncle n t/ defendant seeking the said relief. Pending suit, the plaintiff has f-rled I A No' 1 \79 <'t. 2t'tL8 ':'n O'S'No 27a .:l . of 2O l8 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection of land in Sy.Nos.333 and 334, Rajampet, Sangareddy Town and DistrictanctoconductSur1,e}:andnotedou,nrr,hetherthedisputedland claimed by both the parties is iorming part rvhich suruey number i e' Sy.Nos.333 or 334 of Rajanpet, Sangareddy Town and District' It is stated in the af[Ldavit that aftcr receiving the summons in the suit the respondent herein has illegally constructed compound u'all and one room encroaching into the land of the petitioner/ plaintiff' - Respondent/ defendant hled coun te r-aflidavit stating that the 5. petitioner/ plaintiff filed the I A. by suppressing the material facts and documenls and that the petitioner had approached the Court with unclean hands to grab the plot of the respondent/ defendant, who purchased the plot in Lhe year 1989 under registered sale deed vide document No'2775/1989 dated12.06'lgSgextent2lOSq.ydsinSy.No.334situatedatRajampet Village,SangareddyTownandDistrictandthatdeniedtheclaimofthe petitioner that the petitroner is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. -/ 3 r{NR, ,_i C.R.P I{o.881 of 2019

6. Alter going into the rival submissions made 1,' thr: petitioner and rcspondent, the learned trial Court came to conclusir r that "though the presenl petition rs filed to locate ;rnd demarcate schcdr I pr(,pert) and if it is alloq'ed it rvould amoLult to nothing but abuse of proc-';s of lau,and it also amounts to coller;tion ol evidence. As such, the learne c Iudge dismissed the petition. Aggrreved by the same, the prescnt Civil Revir; rn Petition is hled.

7. I-{card Ms. Shalini Donthi, Iearned co uscl reprcsenting Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the pe tilrc r cr/ plaintiff through virtuallr'. In spite ol sen,icc of notice, non€ ;ppcared lor the respondent/defendant

8. Lcarned counsel appearing for the revision petitr ner subrnitted that the trial Court had erroneously came to conclusion tha: :he petition filed for appointrnent o[ an Advocate Commissioner is nothinq r, rt lor collection o[ evidenr:c and therefore dismissed the pctition. Lear::l counscI further submits thal since therc is a dispute rvith regard I o tl-r I i,lentil'ication of the land, the appointment of an advocate-commissioner wo - c[ be helplul for tht: trial Court in adjudicating the lis. In support of her <:r,r tentions, she relied upon the judgments of erstwhile High Court of the Andt I r Pradesh in Smt.A Laxmamma v. Smt A. Venkatammal and Donadulu l'ma Devi a. Girikd Katamaiah @) Basaiah and others2. -,t" 'izoro) o .rLt us: r 1zo r) : rLo so I 4 MNR, J. C.R.P No.881 of 2O19

9. Having heard the learned counsel lor the petitioner and perused the cntire material placed on record, thc pornt tirat arises for consideration is "rvhether the triai Court is errcd in clrsmissing the application filcd for appointn)ent of an advocate-commissione r"? POINT No.1: The main contention of rhe petitioner is that he is only seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner lor local inspection in respect of both the Sy.Nos.333 and 334 of the Rajampet Village, Sangareddy Town and District and [o survey and locate the disputed land claimed by both the parties forming part of whrch suruev numbcr i.e., S1,.Nos.333 or 334, but, as it is seen from the counLer affidavit and u ritten slatement which lr'ere filed and placed before trial Court u'ould shorv thal the dispute which arose between the parties is in respect of the idcntihcation of the property and identification of the Survey numbcrs as Lhe defendant contended that her plot is situated in Sy.No.334 whereas the plaintift is claiming that his plot is situated in Sy.No.333. 1O. Admitted$, both are entirely diflerent properties and as it is contention of the defendant that she had purchased the open plot situated in Sy.No.334 and it is contended by the plaintiff that as the said plot falls in Sy.No.333. Admittedly there is a dispute with regard to the survey numbers i.c., Sy.Nos.333 and 334 and to locate the plot as to in which survey number it is locate. Learned counsel for the petitioner u,ould rely upon the Judgment's of the e rstwhile High Court o[ the Andhra Pradesh in Donadulu I I i 1i I I l I 5 /{I{R,./ il.R P I{o.'9,91 of 2019 Uma Devi v. Girika Katamaiah @ Basaiah & Others . supra), u'herein I is [-reld as under:- ''l'lr.sc obse^'a1ior.rs or findings of the Sttprcrn' ,lottrt clearlr' llr;rttitrtt llrllt 1\ lrt rr thclc is a drsDuic oi rssue rrith regitr(: tl r(lr'Llt1i\ ,): .L propert\ rn a hligation lt is ne('essan ro apPolnt a I , lmissioner lor loc':rhzrrrg the propclt\ *'hich mar be evcn bl taking ne(cl .ir ,,ssista . lrom a rlrrahfictl sun,e-r-or lvhich tvill not amount to c ) I ating cvidc:rr:e' u hich rs prohibited. Br vrrtue of lhrs provision appointment of a Comn i sioni:r to \ rsit tlr(' suit propertv and also demarcate the propertj- or- I r [)crtr(:s talilii!] assistan.e frrm ar qualified sun'c-!or and also note the pll' : Iarl fr:atures ol llr('propcrtv in qucstion is qualified. The rvords incorpo|i t ( "ln an-v iLIit :rr rthich the CoLlrt cleals a local investigation to be reqrt,:i 'or )roper !or tlrt purpose of clucidating any matter irr dispute... the ( ( t 1 nr,r-v issL r .r .ornmissiorl to such person as it thinks ltt directing ].t'r t Ir rnzrke s tr:h lD\cstigation anLl to report thereon to the Court" are vel.-i r t)ortilnt in tlle pr(sent.ontext There is no restriction rvith regards to ttit l,porr.ttmenr of a I)crsorl to carrl'out such local investigation for th( l1:poses nctrld tlrerein. This includes impliedly the porver of the Co'r 1 -o itppoint a !ommissroner to visit such property and get it sune]ed ar t also noted rts PlNsical fcatures taking help from a qualified sun'rr ,r subject to nccessaI1 requlr(imen[- In B:Ltchu Naravana Rao v Batchu Venkata Narasirnt: r Rao[2010 (5) ALI) 83) this Court considered similar question of r Jrointment of commissroner in a suit to identify the property schedule,l :ilercin, lo lLr boundarics thereof, to measure the property and also tl .rsccrtain the possession of a l)artv over the property rvhich was not pr rritt(d. Under those circumstances thrs Court held as follows. Time ancl again this Court held that a Commissi ) e r cannot l)e ilppointed to gather evidence for and on behatf bf any pa 1 . It is for thc party concerned, to establish its case and the feasibilitl c appointing a Commissioner will be considered, if the Court feels that irspcction and lilrther cnquir]'is necessary, having regard to the uncerr.i r\, that carlre into existence, alter the trial has progressed to ccrtain xtent. In fhe instant case, the respondent not only $'anted the Commiss c r:r to ide n Lifi tirc suit schedule propertv and ll-x the boundaries thereof, l,r t also to fil(: a i ! I I I I I i I 6 l/.\'R, .-, C.R.P No.881 of 2O19 report, as to his posscssion over the land in R'S No 532/1 of that Viltage and the one in possession of a person is not a partv to the suit " "r'ho l1 In A'Laxrnamma v' A'venkatamrnl ('i suPra)' the erstwhile High Coust ofAndhra Pradesh, held as under:- "Orders in the nature of appointment ol an advocate Commissioner to note clown the physical features and boundaries of the disputecl properties are incidental and complimentary in nature and assist the Court in arriving at a just decision in the lis unlike suppiemcnlary orders' The request for appointment ol Commtssioner for the purpose stated by the defcnclar-rts' ln the cotlsidercd vierv of this Court, by no stretch of imagination' can be called an attempt to gather evidence Further' Lhe pleadings of the parties in the interlocutory application would also show that the plalntiffs also filed a sketch map in respect of the suit plots. If the Commissioner is appoinled' he can also verify and submit to the Court about the correcLness or otherwise of the sketch map said to have been hled by the plaintiffs Therefore, thc appointment of a Commissioner, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, would be hetpfut to the Court below in conclusively and effectively adjudication the lis'" . 1,2. Having heard the Iearned counsel for the petitioner and also considering the pleadings of both the parties, it is a clear case as to the dispute regarding location of the property and the boundary dispute in such case, the l-rndings of the trial Court held that appointment of Advocate w 7 I{NR, -i C.R.P Nc,.881 of 2019 Commissioner u'oulcl am()unts to collection of evider-r; . It is contended [).\ the petitioner that i[ the propert_v is identihed and bo., ularics are fixed zLnd unless the said location of tl're propcrty is made out, []) cniirc lis ri.ould n,rt come to iogrc:.J , rcl and the said dispr-rte would become L;tresolved.

13. hr vier,r, o[ tLre dct:isions of this Court as cited abo e ancl also thcrc is a clear case of dispute rr ith regard to the survey number ; anct as there bcir-,q r-ro legal restriction u:th regard to the appoinLm: rt of an Advocalc Commissioncr for the purpose of locating the plots I ' conducting surver. with help of Survevor, ri.hich also helps the Court to cor .r: to a right decision and also that the Court can appreciate the oral etnd c r cutrre ntarv evide rrce placed by thc Advoc:rtc Commissioner before the Court r hich i.,,,ouid help thc OoLlrt to see that the entirc lis rvoulcl come to logical en,l {s such, this Court is o[ the opinion tha t the learncd trial Court ough t to have appointed Advocate Commissioncr tbr local inspection for the said rlots and thc hnding of the trial Court, thal il amounts to collection of :'ridcnce cannot be accepted and no srretch o[ imagination it amounts to ga t rering of evidence. 14 . For the above said reasons, this Court is of .l e. o pinion rhat the learned trial Court has committed an error in dismissi I { thc application on the ground that it amounts to collection of evidence arr I the learned Judge ought to have allorved thr: application. Hence, this Ci-,, I Ilevision petition is deserved to bc allou-ed. A'NR, ui C.R.P No.881 of 2019

15. In rhe result, this civit Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the orclcr passed in 1..1.No- 7179 ot 2019 and consequcntly, I.A.No 1 179 of 2Ol9 is allou,cd and trial C<]urt is directecl to appoint an Advocatc Commissioner lrom the list of panel of thc la.r,yers, ," available rvith the court, and the lcarned Advocate-Commissioner shall conduct the local inspection to locate thc clairaed plots by both the parties in Sy.Nos 333 and 334 of the suit schedulc property and verify whether the suit schedule properr)'comparing u,rth the boundary whether falls in Sy.Nos.333 or 334 of Rqampet Village, Sangareddy Town and District by taking the assistance of the Surveyor ol the Suney, settlemcnt and Land Records Department or takinB assistance ol a licenscd surve)'or. There shall be no order as to cosLs' As a sequel, Lhe miscellaneous petitions pending, if an1 , shall stand closed 1 SD/- M JAWAHAR REDDY IST ANT REG ISTRAR ,ITRUE COPYII ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 The Principal Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy fft:; ;ER#* r $'v ool[i]i] 'ro oouSf ' *' Two CD Coptes Advocate RePresenting RC/PSI- YT I ; t I I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 0410912025 ORDER CRP.No.881 of 2019 ,,,., /3r lli;' lt9 :t ... t 1l nc 4\ Li\ ;l )ti )t, Y.;) \ I t' '-l r:i:r' Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petitio' is Allowed. Cr.,\Pb Sff