The High Court · 2025

Maganti Ramakrishna Rao @ lamakrishna, S/o Raghavendra rao, aged about.3S years Occ. busines-! R/o Railway station aEa=ruear Rals-' -.-- Rajeshwa ra rice m i ll. Bellampally ma ncrre'rra i JisiriJt Masa Venkata Swamv S/o Chinnulu ag-ed about 3g y ears Occ. political leader rio Ashok Nagar vittage, ia;JuiifirroJ rv".Jt Respondent No 2 no-t neces6ary party district -- "raal ...RESPONDENTS i I I lA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the cir,; mstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl r,ay be pleased to suspend the order dated 7 04.2025 in lA No 57612025 in O! No 13 of 2014 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Bellampally IVlancherial Distri<;t nd pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. cUDt MADHUSUDHAN I EDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SRl. V RAMAKRISHNA REOI y The Court made the following: ORDER I i I ! I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR - CML REVISION PETITION No.1751 of 2025 ' ORDER: Aggrieved by thc orclcr clated 07.O4 2025 passed irr I.A.No.576 of 2025 ir-r O.S.No. 13 ol 2014 on the lilc of the learned Junior Civil Juilge at Bellanrpalli. thc present Civil Revision Petitior-r is liled

2. Ileard Sri Gudi IV[aclhusudan Rt:ctdv, lcarned counsel appearing for thc petitioners and Sri V. Ramakrishna Reddv. learnecl counsel appcaring for respondents. Perused the record

3. The petitioners hcrein arc plaintifis/ rcspondetlt Nos. 1 to 9 in I.A.No.567 of 2025. l?cspor.rdent No.1 herein is defendant No.2/petitioner in I.A.No 576 of 2025 ir-r O.S.No. 13 of 2Ol4 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Beilarnpalli. ,:' \ \,SI(,J 'l)lir. l75lr;i2U25 2 4 I.A.No.576 of 2O2S in O.S.No.13 of 2(, ,l is filc.ri by thr: petitioner / defcnd:urt No.2 under Orcir:_ )iX\/l RLrle 9 ol CPC with a prayer for appointment .1. r\clvoca1e Cr-rrnmissioner to do local investigation alrI Lor.alizc the su I t scheclqle property for making : un L.-1r determination of the boundaries and e: I rnt of schedule prope rt}'. with the assistance ol. t I c r\ssistant Dilcctor oI Survcy and Land Records, Mi rrctrcrial or Mandal Survcyor, Bellampally and to submtt r.cpor.t r.rrth full details of suruey number of just decisiorr ol the <:ase in thc intercst ol justice. The facts in bricj.r:; statet.l in l.A.)'1o.576 ot 2025 are that: :utd SLIlt The pi.intits-R-1 to R-9 have firect ,, suit 1br permanent in-junction restraining defenr[ Llt No.2/ petitioner ald defendant No. 1/R_1O in the p: ssession of plaintiffs ovcr suit land admeasuring 2 acres in sy.No 9/A situated at Boyapally vilage, Tancr rr mand.l, submitting that the said land is a Govemmer p.rr. Land and number of asslgnments were made and the NVS(,.J C. R. P. No 1751of202; J provisional list was also prepared to whom the survey numbers were assigned. In the sard provisional list the name of the plaintiff was given S_r.No.9/50 in Sv.No.147 The said Government land was assigned tct I73 persons and their survey numbers and sub division numbers were also given along rvith the lancls assigned to those persons. In the Patta Certilicate filed by rhe plaintiff, the boundaries, were not mentioneci to the iand assignecl to the plaintiff and sub division number is also not mentioned either in the Final Patta Certificate or in the Title Deed pass book or pattedar pass book. Horver.er, the boundaries given by the plaintiff Lo her land along with the plaint pertains to Sy.No.29/A belongs to one Mr.Maganti Suresh, S/o.Late Magalti Ramchar-rder Rao. R/o.Bellampally and as per the boundaries given by the plaintiff towards Western land, there is land of Mr.Maganti Subba Rao, who is elder brother of Mr.Maganti Suresh. It is submitted that the boundaries given by the plaintiff pertaining to Sy.No.29/A I I'i. SK,.I i I t'.No.I751 oi 2025 4 admeasuring Ac.2-69 cents belongs t<t Mr.Maglalti Surcsh, who is petitioner,s junior paternal 1l rcle ancr thc: said Mr.Maganti Suresh is the pattedar rl the suit schedule land ar-rcl that the plaintiff has no r ight against the said land as it was never assigned to tht plaintill by Government and that as per the boundaries liven by thc plaintiff along u,ith her plaint are not tallyi rg and that the said lact rvas suppressed by grving wron? in the suit, depriving the petitioner,s right ar from enjoving the suit schedule land pe: boundaries c[ his uncle :efully and unless Advocate Commissioner is appointecl 1r about the present possession of the sLr propert5r, thc real facts will not be discloserl has been filed by respondents/ plaintil investigate I scheclulc A counter 's denl.ing appointment of Advocate Commissioner ancl questioned the very maintainability ol the Application a:r 1 prayecl to dismiss the said appiication.

5. The trial Court relying upon the orders passed in Jammi Venkqta Krtshna Rao and. other:; u. Jqmmi NVSK,J C R P. No. 175I of2025 ) Venksta Hq.numa Rqvind.ranqtht and K. Daaanand and another a. P. Sampath Kuntar2, observcd that rvl-renever there is a dispute rcgarding boLrndaries or physical features of the property and in such cases, the lacts have to be physically viewed because thc recitals of the documents rnay not reveal the true facts and further observed that the petitioner has sho',vn sulficient grounds to appornt Advocate Commissioner fbr noting don'n the physical features of the suit schcdule property ar-rd the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner does not lead collecting and gathering of evidence as held in the above decisions and no prejudice shall be caused to respondent as commissioncr work shall be carricd in the prescnce of both parties and both counsels by serving prior notice to them and thereby allowed the application by appointing Mr.K. Sandeep, Advocate as Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC and was directed to visit the suit schedule property for measuring the extent of , 20 15 (s) ALT i4 r 20 15 (4) ALT 560 \ 1 N\rSI(,.I R P No.l7i, I of 2025 6 land admeasurin.g 2 acres in Sy.No.9/,, situatt:ci at Bovapall_v r.iilzrge, Tandur mandal for locaI inspection tcr knoq, thc bouncl:rries and physical fee ures oJ. suit schedule lrropertv wrth the assistanc: of Manderl Surveyor ancl u,as clirectecl to submit his r.eport on or bt:fore 15.O4.2025. The relevaat portioll of 1 te said order rs extractccl belorr " 10. l4.4leneut:r there is a dispute rr garcling bouttdarie-s or phgsical features of pr: terty in such cases the facts haue to be pt gsicallg uiewed because the recitals of the drt, ttments rna.A not reLte.al the true facts. It is tnte hat the petitiorter auerre_d. ht para B of the pettt ctn that the cotu-t appoirtts ad.uocate commissiort ,r to d.o Locctl inuestiqatlon about the presentpo s jesszon of the stLtt scheclule propertg and ascet_, qtn the actual bourtclaries and. extent of th z said propertq ancl localize the suit propertA t 1e real facts witt be ciisclosed.,,. It is weil settlecl , zw the aduocate commissioner shall not be ay for collection of euid.eruce, in the present these circum stances out that there is a ;uit, in and it is clear picttt. I came real dispute betute tn the t.,tointed NVSK,J C R.P.No. i 75 t of 2025 7 pctrties regarding boundaries or phgsical features of propertg For adjudication it is just ttnd proper to know the real and phgsical Jbatures of the suit schedule propertg must be nscerlained.

11. Therefore in uiew of the aboue dlscussron, this court is of the consid,ered opinioru that the petitioner has shou.tn suffi.cient ground.s to ctppoint Aduocate Commissioner for noting down the physical features of the suit schedule property and the appointment of the Ad.uocate ()ommissioner does not lead to collecting and _ctctthering of euidence as held" in the aboue decisions and no prejudice shall be caused. to respondent as commrssioner tuork shall carriecl irt the presence of both parties qnd. both counsels bg seruing prior notice to tLtem. As such tltis petition is liable to be allotued as prayed for. The point is answered. accordinglg.

12. In the result, the petition is qllou,ted Si K. Sandeep Aduocate ls appointed. os commissioner under XXVI rute g CpC. The commissioner is directed to uisit the suit schedule property i.e. land measuing 2 acres In l NVSI(,.I (1. i F N"o.1751 of 2025 8 Sg.No.9/A sitttated ctt Bogapalli Village:, Mandcrl for local in.spection for knc bounduies and pltgsicctl features ( schedule propefty tuith. the asslslrr Mandal. surueaor. The commissioner is c to draw rougl't sketch of suit schedule p.r The commissioner is directed to file repo before 15.4.25. Both parties and coun.; directed to cooperate with the comttt: The cornmissioner shall serue notice to t) parties and to their respectiue couns<: commissioner's fee is ftxed al Rs. 1( (Rupees Ten Thousand onlg) directly pag,t petitioner/ defendant and to file receipt tr ['antTur t !) tl^te J- stLit L.e of irected cpeftg. zls are siotter. tth the ;. The ,000/ _ 'ble bg )ourt. "

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that now the matter is at the advarr. :ed stage of hearing ald at this point of time the respor., Lent No.1 / defendant No.2 hled the a_foresaid I.A.No.57rt of 2O2S in O.S.No. 13 ol 2C.74 only to drag on the me tter and it would cause drastic and adverse impact on -he case of the petitioners. Learned counsel further s_bmits that though the order is passed directing the Co nmissioner NVSK,J C.R.P.No.l751 of 2025 9 only to take the assistance of Mandal Surveyor, wherea.s in the tvarrant, it is stated that the Commissioner has been appoinred to visit the suit schedule property lor thc purpose of inspection and to know its boundaries ancl physical features and the Advocate Commissioner may take the assistance of Director of Survey and Land Records, Mar-rcherial in execution of warrant and submit report on or before 15.04.2025.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since the suit is filed for perpetual injunction, the identification of the physical features of the suit schedule property is necessar5r for effective hearing of the suit and that no sutvey has been conducted till now.

8. In view of the same, the impugned order dated

07.O4.2025 passed in I.A.No.S7 6 of 2O2S in O.S.No.13 of 2Ol4 on the {ile of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Bellampalli is a reasoned order, well founded and it does NVSIi,.I C.. i r.No. 175I of2025 10 not require any interference by this Court ir exercise of supervisory powers under Article 227 of Cc, Lstitution of India

9. It is marde clear that if the Advocate Cr rnnrissioner has filed arlv leport, both the parties are a-- l berty to file their objectior-rs before the triai Court, : ad if such objections alfc fi1ed, the trial Court shall < onsider the same for better acijudication of the suit

10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petitiorr is clisposed of. Since the suit is of the year 2014, the - ia1 Court is directed to dispose of the suit, at the earliers- There shali be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any p:-rding, shal1 stand closed. {; ,-L LAKSHMI BABU t EPUTY REGISTRAR \ \ \ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// I I I i To,

1. The Junior Civil Judge at Bellampally Mancherial Iti ;trict. 2. One CC to SRl. cUDl IVADHUSUDHAN REDDY Advc r ate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRl. V RAIVAKRISHNA REDDY Advocate [( PUC] 4. Two CD Copies T HIGH COURT DATED 11610612025 \,, (" t ORDER CRP.No.1751 ot 2025 c!\ 1 riE j r qa\..1 ,,i. \$ 2 I fr;tt lt)li t-t (,' \ o r>Ai;, :t-" CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISP0SED OF L 1 ", b