The High Court · 2025

... Petitioner/Defendant No'3 AND 1 Shaik Sher Ali, S/o Shaik Malik Ahmed, Aged about 45 years' Occ Xlfttiil; 'ilb. 'n rl.. i-ori, ThanakalanVillase, Yedapallv Mandal' Nizamabad. I . ...ResPondent /Plaintiff

2. NandiDet Saraswathi, Wo. Late Shankar' Aged 51-years' Occ' Household " H/.;. FiN;. Z-5gii i;nrrrpet Villase, Yadapallv Mandal' 3. Nandioet Savita, W/o- Veeresham' Aged about 3J. Years' Occ Housewife' - Hil: tiN; i-silt .lanrampet Village, Yadapallv Mandal' .'-Respondents /Defendant No'1 & 2'

4.SmtNasreenAlisha,W/o.MohammedRaizwan'Agedabout:-29Years'Occ: Hor.unolU, R/o. H Nio. 1-10-44, Phulong Skeet Nizamabad'

5. Alishetty Chandra Shekhar, S/o. Eshwariah, Aged about:-63 Years' Occ: - eriin;d", R/o. H.No.'1-1-121tA, vinayaknagar, Nizambad' ... Respondents/Defendant No.1 & 2 (Respondent No.2 to 5 are not necessary party to the present C R P ) IAN :10F 2025 o fi ,l[^,'[-=d,:*fl ii#ii,*#::,':ffi ;i1ffi ,}.",,,1,'ff.i,n Counsel for the petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent: MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI CRP o.83 3of SRI T.KRISHNA KUMAR .N 2025 il1idr,:lj#f*fu i**11,";x jiisg,";;r;3?"ns1:.,, j,i,ijffi Between: ;,ff :t H8f fl ffi 5':, "'# .x:k{x[:i ji%.fi | $: i,*il"$ 3 5 ye a rs occ B u s i n e s s, ..Petitioner/Defendant No.3 AND 1 ilj*fil:iAt'1,:,fi"ltJy,i,,+,*lT_T;,lvi,i#"V: j:J":ilii3..";, ...RespondenUplaintiff ' Hfl ilift:'ila:t{::["H*,:1i,i,Hy:#:if,l,ffi:? d"" ;;;";,' ' ilifi'%:5 ff ',f ; H,#ry,"ilitiijiin* f;: fu . a rs, o cc H o u sewi re R,o ' 3s #"1T5fri,i"iH^K: y:iafl?ix,iffi3ia3id abour2e vears 'A['"nBly,fJ.Tti,.,Ii{:1?ii,,[1il,fi j,,:t;:"r::#;:" ...Respondents/Defendant No.1 & 2 (Respondent No_ 12 to S are not necessary party to the present C.R.p.) ...Respondents/Defendant No.1 & 2 7 IA NO 12o 2025 F 'that in the circumsta t it "-;";U ;l :l ;Ut,""t'TS' rffi t"oi"]n' t'tt tn' oi'posar or the Petition under Section 151 CPC praying p # ol t n e att io-aviill" o i n, "p ;:*'#il ir':"r:'"i[t;,Jil"ilo'n", " Counsel for the Petitioner: MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI' T' KRISHNA KUMAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER nces stated in leased to stay 121 of 2019), C.R.P. THE HOIT'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA LREvIS ION PETITIONNos.823and 833 of 20 25 cwI coMMON o ER: challenging ancl 723 of Senior Civil The present Civil Revision petitions are iiled the impugnerl common order passed by the learned Judge at Bodhan, dated 12.02.2025 in I.A.Nos.722 2021 in O.S.No.238 of 2023 (old O.S.No. 1,21 ol 20 l9). filed undcr SecriorL 15 i of CpC to reopen the suit lor delendants further evidence and under Order 26, Rule 9 r/u, section 75(B) of CPC to appcint an Advocate Commissioner to slrrve_\. ancl fix the boundaries; of land in for Sy.No.4 and note dolr.n its phr.sical features with tire assistance of Maldal Survei or respective]\,. 2. Heard Sri T. Krishna Kumar, learnecl cclrnsel lor the petitioner/ defendant No.3 and Sri Mohd Islamuddin Ar-rsari. learned counserl for respondent No. I /plaintiff. perused rhe record.

3. Considering the submissions ol both partres. tl-re Trial Court has disrrrissed the above petitions, holding that in a simple suit for injunction, the prime point to be considered is posscssion ot.er the suit schedule propert\i ai;cl its icientitr an,l it\ I ( lt l' \o. l'li drjrlii:ll ot l0ll It is further held that the that the burden is alwaY s Court seeking relief and on the partr' '"r'ho approaches the said burdcn does not shift to the in the case of petitloner. re'spondent cannot be a ground for seeking aPPointment of Advocate Commissioner and that the petitioner under the gurse of above petitions cannot get the suit schedule IrropertY "r'eakness identified.

4. After filing of the present Civil Rcvision Petitioirs' the respondent No.1 herein filed counter alleging that the petitioner is not interfering u'ith his possession over his lancl in Sr" \o'5/A and 9/A situated at Jankampet village' Yadapally Mandal but was interfering \^'ith his larrcl in Sr''No -l/A,admei'slrrin8 Ac.O.12 Gts. It is further aiiegeci that as there is 'a boitndary dispute, in order to solve the same' the respondenl No' 1 consented for survey of the entire land in 51 No 4/A for Ac.O.34 Gts., out of ',r'hich, respondent No 1 is cliriming Ac.O.12 Gts. and the petitioner is claiming 0 22 Gts'

5. The respondent No.1 has no objection for appointt:rent of an Advocate Commissioner to flx the boundaries and nolr' down \ \ ItU ( ft 1, \o! 8I ixr,t St i L,r l)ri the ph_r,sical fearures of the land in Sy.No.4/A in order to give quletus to tir e issue

6. Since rhe re is consensus betr,veen vrro("lrrLrs Detween the parties, to put quletus to issue, the impugned common order is liable to be set aside b,r- allor,i,ing these Revision petitions.

7. In the resuit, the Bsvisisn petitions are aliou.ecl. The impusned common order passed by the learned Scnior Civii Judge at Bodhan, dated 12.O2.2025 in I.A.Nos.722 and 723 of 2021 in O.S.lVo.238 of 2023, is set aside. Consequenil-t., the applications moved by the Revision petitioners to re_open the suit lor delcn,lants' further evidence and lor appoint menr of Advccate Comrnissioner are alloq..ed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if anr.. sha.i sland , tisJrosed of SD/. N. CH NDRA SEKHAR RAO EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Senior Civil ,Judge at Bodhan. 2. One CC to Sri T Krishna Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Mohd tstamuddin nn.ari, n"Oilcate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copres NVB/gh h'irz Y HIGH COURT DATED:03tOgt2O2S COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.823 and g33 of 2O2S /.. L) .i. )\ 1. t,, .,f ((\ (' ] o -\ { 16 sEPm .qpr I reEC I ALLOWING THE BOTH CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS 6 1 q \