The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA DATE: L5.L2.2O25 ON NO 76 0F Between: G.Kanakalnma. G.Mallesh ...Petitioner ..Respondent And ORD ER This civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 0f the Constituti,rn of India, is filed aggrieved by the order, dated t6.o4.2019, in l.A.No.2B8 0f 2018 in o.s.No.164 0f 2013 pasSed by the learned. Xl Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secundertrbad, u,hereunder and whereby, the application filed under or,ler xvl Rule-l and Rule-7 (A) read with 151 of C.P.C. prttying the Court to summon the Revenue Divisional Officer to give evid.ence regarding the boundaries, location and nature of the land pertaining to D-l'-orm Patta Certificate G I t44SO i 96 of House bearing No. 10-3- 33 / 4 I A admeasuring 40 square yards in Survey No.75 West Marredpally, was dismissed 2 -.' NNR,! cRP 1476 2019

2. Heard Sri K.Dinish, learned counsel representing sri Yakarapu sheelu, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. Perused the material placed on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner- plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of a,foresaid property. She was also issued original D-Patta Certificate by the Revenue Authorities. Since the date of purchase, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property and she has been paying electricity and water charges. Her family members also got issued ration card and Aadhar card in respect of the schedule property.

4. It is stated that since the suit scheduie property is very old and in dilapidated condition and the petitioner wanted to demolish old building structures and to reconstruct the building, the respondent-defendant without having any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property since one week he often visiting the petitioner's suit schedule property and causing interruption/obstruction to her and also not allowing her to reconstruct her house. F'urther, on )/ /e? -1 3 NNR,J cRP_1476_2019

17.O3.201i] at about 14:00 hours, the respondent calne to the suit schedule property with anti-sociai elements and started obstructinl3 the petitioner's proposed construction of the suit building and when the petitioner resisted the attempts, the respondenl and his agents threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. Therefore, the petitioner filed the aforesaid suit againsit the respondent.

5. Pending suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.28B of 2018 under order xvl Rule I and 7A of code of civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.CJ to summon the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, to give evidence regarding boundarie,s, location and nature of the land pertaining to D- Forrir Pat':a Certificate No.G/ l44BO 196 of House bearing No.1O-3-33141A, admeasuring 40 square yards in Survey No.75 of Nlarredpally Village, Secunderabad and also to bring copy of th,: documents pertaining to D-Form pattas issued to other allotees who are situated on North, East and West side of the suit schedule property of aforesaid house hand over summons to the petitioner/plaintiff to serve the s€une and the sarne wa.s dismissed on the ground that Advocate Commissir>ner had already appointed in I.A.No.lL76 of 2013 4 NNR,},.: cRP_1476_2019 wherein, he filed a detailed report by mentioning the location, nature and boundaries of the property, which is similar to the present relief,

6. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioner filed I.A.No.31O of 2O13 in O.S.No.164 of 2Ot3 seeking to set aside the decretal order, dated 17.O7.2014 on the file of learned XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court. The said application was dismissed. Challenging the said order the petitioner filed appeal in C.N{.A.No.29 of 2Ol4 on the file of learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, under Order XLIII Rules 1 and 2 CPC to set aside the decretal order, dated L7 .O7.2O 14 in I.A.No.31O of 2Ol3 in O.S.No. 164 of 2OI3. The learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, vide its order, dated 26.O9.2016 allowed the appeal in-part and remanded the matter to the learned trial Court 'uvith a direction to dispose of the main suit within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of the said order. However, directed both parties to maintain status quo or1 the ground that without determining the point of identity of the property simply basing on un-confronted documents such as photographs and rough ,l / I 5 NNR,J cRP_1476_2019 sketch filed by the respondent, the learned Judge c€une to the conclusio n is not correct and directed the learned Judge to take up the matter and decide who is in possession of the suit schedule property by considering the evidence.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has created a fabricated document with the same house number 10-3-33 l3 of Marredpally and trying to grab the r;uit schedule property. He further submits that the learned trial Court erroneously came to the conclusion based on Exs.It.26-rough sketch, R- 19 - NIL Encumbrance Certificatr: of house bearing No.10-3-3314/A, admeasuring 40 square yards, situated at Marredpally allotted to the petitioner herbin, with that of House No.1O-3-33/3, admeasuring 370 square yer.rds, claimed by the respondent-defendant herein, which is s;ituated at different place. He further submits that the learnt:d triai court erroneously came to the conclusion that the troundaries of the House property bearing No.1o-3- 33/4lA allotted to the petitioner herein and the boundaries of the property bearing House No.lo-3-33/3 said to be owned by the respondent herein are different. He further submits that the boundaries are not ta[ying with the suit schedule \ , f,, 6 NNR,J iri' cRP_1476_2019 property. In fact, Ex.R-19-Encumbrance Certificate, which was filed by the respondent-defendant is a 'NIL - EC'without any boundaries. But, the appellate Court in C.M.A No.29 of 2Ol4 had set aside the above findings of the learned trial Court. B. Having heard learned counsel for both parties, it appears that Advocate Commissioner was already appointed in I.A.No. 1176 of 2013 wherein Commissioner had already filed a detailed report by mentioning the location, nature of boundaries of the property. Seeking the similar relief, the present application is filed, which is un-warranted and not necessary, as such the petition was dismissed.

9. Against which the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff on the ground that the suit schedule property is a patta land without any boundaries and only the patta issuing authority can ascertain the boundaries of the suit schedule property; that the learned Judge erroneously held that there are two distinct prayers in the petition one is calling the Revenue Divisional Officer to give evidence regarding the bound.aries and another relief is to / I I I I I t I I i , i ;. i i i : 7 NNR,J cRP_1476_2019 bring the copy of the documents pertaining to D-Form Patta of other a.llottees which is against Rule 55 of Civil Rules of Practice. It is further stated that in fact the both prayers are consequerrtial reliefs and the learned trial Court erroneously held that the petitioner had not taken any steps to obtain the public records pertaining to the s.r.rit schedule property a66l that Adv,3s31s Commissioner had already appointed in I.A.No.lli'6 of 20 13 wherein Advocate commissioner fiIed a detailed report by mentioning the location, nature and boundaries of the suit schedule property and therefore, there is no necessity for summoning the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderaba<l, to give evidence with regard to the boundaries location and nature of the land pertaining to patta which is said to haue been issued in the nanne of the petitioner.

10. No doubt, the other objections have also been called for ::egarding other reliefs. 1 1. Admittedly, the patta certificate does not contain boundaries. Whereas there are certain documents have placed belbre this Court i.e., Rectification Deed in respect of Registered Gift settlement shows boundaries which are :, j,: i :j 8 NNR,JIA. cRP_1476_2019 mentioned therein. Besides that the record shows that summoning of Revenue Divisional Officer to give specific evidence regarding boundaries, location and nature of the land. L2. On perusal of the order of the learned trial Court, it shows that in view of pendency of suit i.e., O.S.No.288 of 2OlB, before the learned trial Court, the petitioner did not choose to approach revenue authorities to seek the documents. Further, the petitioner has not taken any steps to produce oral or documentary evidence before the learned trial Court. As the suit is was filed for Perpetual injunction against the respondent, it is lor the petitioner to prove his possession over the suit schedule property and in the absence of the petitioner taking any steps to secure the said documents from the Revenue Divisional Officer but relying upon the Court that too by summoning the Revenue Divisional Officer to give evidence and to produce documents \ appears to be:'not proper and the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the application contending that the present relief which is sought is unwarranted and not necessary. ,..,{\ r' / a1 9 NNR,J cRP 1476 2019

13. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that dismissal of application by the trial Court appears to be on proper grounds and this Court holds that there is no error committeC by the learned trial court in dismissing the applicatic n and the petitioner has not made out any grounds for proving the boundaries and the situation of the land. Since the record discloses that there is already a report of the Advocate Commissioner which would decide the Court as held by the leerned.Judge.

14. For the said reasons, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court and consequently the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissect.

15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissect. There shall be no order as to costs. Mis:ellaneous petitions, if ?fly, pending shall stand closed \ To, SD/- P. PONNA KRISHNA ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at 2. One CC':o SriYakarapu Sheelu, Advocate loP 3. One CC':o Sri G.V.S. Ramaiah Naidu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD 3opies Kam/PSL (7+ HIGH COIURT DATED:1511212A25 I I I I ) ,l () (-) * t THE S c 9 ilI, ?rltr t _,...t- E I i I ORDER CRP.No.1476 of 2019 DISMISSIhIG THE CRP