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 grant stay of all further proceedings in suit O.S.No.238 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior civil Judge, Medchal, pending disposal of the cRp. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between: K. sadananda Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Age - 7g years, occ- Business c/o Kirbe Godowns, Somaram Village, tVledchal Mandal, R.R. Oistrict. ...Petitioner/Respondent No. 1 in CRP AND 1 2 3 K. Amarnath, s/o. Late K. Narasing Rao, Aged about 65 years, occ: Business R/o. Somaram Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ( Pandarinath, S/o.Late K. Narasing Rao, Aged about 43 years, Occ Business, R/o. somaram village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Patwari Goods Pvt. Ltd, Rep: _Py its lVlanaging Director. Kushat and Roopak. Having its office at Somaram Village Medctial Mandat, Ranga Reddy District ...Respondents/Petitioners in CRP ...RespondenURespondent Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt. 20-04-2023 as extended from time to time passed in lA No. 1 of 2022 in CRP No. 668 of 2022 and dismiss the CRPs with exemplary costs and grant no such interim order or orders without the petitioner herein being heard in the matter. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. C M R Vetu Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : Sri V Dyumani The Court made the following: ORDER IN THT HIGH COI'RT FOR THE STATE Or. TELANGANA AT ITTDERABAI) THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.668 of 2O22 DATED THE l1tb DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 Between: K. Amarnath and another K. Sadananda Reddy and another And ... Petitioners ... Respondents ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of tlr,e Constitution of India assailing the order dated 25.O1.2022 passed in I.A.No.1653 of 2019 in O.S.No.238 of 2009 by the learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-XX Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal.

2. Petitioners herein are petitioners-plaintiffs and respondents herein are respondents-defendants in I.A.No.1653 of 2OL9 in O.S.No.238 of 2OO9.

3. Petitioners have filed I.A.No.1653 of 2019 under Order XXVI Rule g rlw.section 151 of CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule properties and to survey the suit Sy.Nos.13 and. 14 with the help of official Surveyor with D.T.S. Equipments and to pass such ) t\ It 1i b 2 BRMR,J CRP.No.668 of 2022 other order. Schedule-A property is land admeasuring Ac.O-16 gts., being 20 feet wide strip, with length of lZ,22O feet forming part of sy.No.14 and Schedule-B propert5r is land admeasuring Ac.0-Lo% gts., being 18 feet wide strip forming part of Sy.No.13, both are situated at Somaram village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, with specific boundaries.

4. The affidavit further goes to show that the respondents have damaged the suit schedule properties and conveniently changed the shape and area to grab the same. Advocate commissioner is necessary to measure the suit schedule properties and the existing private road with the help of Mandal Surveyor.

5. Respondents have fited their counter and contended that the petitioners have no semblance of right or title in Sy.No.14, as already smt.M. Anasuya, Mr.S.v.S.S.N. Raju and Mr.N. vrjay Nath Raju have executed registered sale deeds in favour of Mr.D. Avanidera Kumar and Mr.D. Papa Rao, who are the own brother and father of Ms.sulochana, who in turn sold the same to respondent No.l- defendant No.l and his son Mr.p. Rajeev Kumar, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.7428 of 19g5 to an extent of 5o% in the suit schedule property-A i.e., of passage one. In the said passage the said Mr.D. Avanidera Kumar and Mr.D. papa Rao have soo/o right, and at no point of time, no transaction has taken place , / 3 BRMR,J CRP.No.668 of 2022 between the petitioners-plaintiffs and Mr.D.Avanidera Kumar and Mr.D. Papa Rao. Petitioners have intentionally did not file the sketch plan, which is attached to Ex.A-3 and they cleverly removed the same. Respondents have filed Ex.A-S, which is document No.3905. Evidence in the suit is concluded and the matter is posted for judgment on 12.O7.20L9. The learned trial Court has re-opened the matter on 24.O9.2019 for some clarification. Thereafter the present application came to be filed and prayed to dismiss the same.

6. The learned trial Court after going through the material on record has observed that 'the evidence of both the parties was closed on 19.O6.2019 and on 22.07.2019 it was reserved for judgment. On 2O.O9.2O19 the suit was re-opened suo motu for certain clarification and after four adjournments the present petition is Iiled. No circumstances are brought on record by the petitioners to show why the petition could not be Iiled at the earliest stage before the arguments has begUn. As there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances are made out, dismissed the same.

7. rc{.rrea counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Court below failed to see that IA was filed on OS.LL.2O 19 but not when the suit was reseryed for judgment and also failed to see that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed to ascertain the real facts. Respondents, \ \ 4 BRMR,J CRP.No.668 of 2022 r'-, during the subsistence of stafus quo order had damaged the propert5r, changed its shape and a petition under order xxxx Rule 2A of CPC is pending. Learned trial Court failed to see that the suit schedule properties are passages for the ingress and egress of the lands of the petitioners-plaintiffs and the respondents-defendants have no manner of right, relied on the decisions in the cases of i) Mukund Lal v. Sharada Bai and othersl, ii) Salla Eswaramma v. C. subba Reddy2, iii) varala Ramachandra Reddy v. Mekala yadi Reddy3, irJ Kondapally Rajeshwar Rao v. Bura Ellaiaha and v) Alladi Prabhakar Rao and others v. Gowlikar Leela Bai and anothers.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioners have not made out any case for appointment of Advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule properties with the help of Surveyor and the learned trial court has properly appreciated the contentions of the parties and rightly dismissed the application. In support of his contentions has relied on the decisions in cases of i) papasani Sanka-ra Reddy v. \t\t\ | 2006 (1) ALT 22r 2 2OO9 (2) ALT s9 3 2010 (4) ALD 198 a cRp.no.22o0 of 2ol9 (2.8.2o221of rsHC ' cRp.No.6lo of 2022 (6.s.2o221of rSHC ^ i i I t, J I 5 BRMR,J CRP.No.668 of 2022 Kandula Hanumantha Reddy and others6 and ii) G. Ramanaiah v. K. Krishnaiahz.

9. Petitioners-plaintiffs have filed suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents-defendants, their agents, workers, henchmen and any person claiming through them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit schedule properties 'A'and 'B'are stated in para No.3.

10. The plaint averments go to show that the respondents- defendants interfered over the suit schedule properties passage on

10.10.2OO9, thereby the suit came to be filed. Respondents- defendants have filed their written statement contending that the petitioners-plaintiffs have no right or title over the suit schedule properties and they are not entitled for perpetual injunction.

11. Power of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which .t-_49"-g_ bgy., or 6 2013 (41 ALD 322 7 2019 (41 ALD 146 6 BRMR,J CRP.No.668 of 2022 0 exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 9SS). L2. It is to be noted here that evidence in the suit is concluded and the matter is posted for judgment on 22.or -2019 and the same was re-opened by the learned trial court on 2o.og.2o1g for some clarification. Affidavit in I.A.No.1653 of 2ol9 shows the date as

15. 1 1 .2OL9, whereas petition date is shou,n as 05. t t.2ol9.

13. The record goes to show that the breach of injunction application is pending before the learned trial court vide I.A.No.t444 of 2oll. An application under order vI Rule rr of c.p.c., for amendment of plaint also came to be filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs vide I.A.No.1443 of 2otr. The affidavit liled by the petitioners goes to show that the respondents have changed the nature of the suit schedule properties but no material particulars are mentioned in the affidavits that when and at what time the respondents-defendants have changed the suit schedule properties. L4.l Mukund Lall case is pertaining to constmction in violation of sanctioned plan issued by the Municipal Corporation.

14.2 Salla Eswaramma2 case is pertaining to sugarcane crop raised in the suit schedule property by occupying the footpath. */ "/l l I I I I 'l.-tu 7 BRMR,J CRP.No.668 of 2022

14.3 Varala Ramachandra Reddy3 and Kondapally Rajeshwar Raoa cases pertains to boundary dispute. L4.4 Alladi Prabhakar Raos case deals with location of pillars raised in the suit schedule property.

15. This Court having gonq through the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. They are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus, the ratio laid down in the above said decisions are not applicable to the case on hand.

16.1 [n Papasani Sankara Reddy6 this Court observed that the application filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner at a belated stage cannot be entertained. tO.Z In G. RamanaiahT this Court observed that appointment of Advocate CommisSioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule properties, in respect of the perpetual injunction suits, is not permissible. t7. The learned trial Court has observed at paragraph Nos.21 and 22 of its order that the petitioners have not made out any case for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. There is no plan annexed to the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs to show the nature 8 BRMR,J CRP.No.668 of 2022 F, of construction or the property occupied by the respondents- defendants. Further the sketch plan annexed to Ex.A3 is not filed.

18. The powers of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited, it has to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of the record. This Court finds no error in the trial Court order.

19. The learned trial court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, no interference is called for and the Civil Revision Petition deserves no consideration, and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.

20. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. lnterim order/s if any sharl stand vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s shall stand closed. SD/. A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Cyberabad at Medchat. 1 The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum XX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 2. One CC to Sri. C M R Velu, Advocate tOpUCI 3 One CC to Sri V Dyumani, Advocate 1beUC1' 4. Two CD Copies DL/PSL ,l n THE S o * 29 J AI{ ?026 * HIGH COURT DATED:1111212025 ORDER CRP.No.668 of 2022 DISMISSING THE CRP G \