Nerudu Srinivas Reddy and another v. Neerudu Sunanda Sunanda Reddy Sripathy Sunanda Reddyl

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 vacate the interim order dated: 09-06-2023 passed in l.A.No. 1 of 2023 and dismiss the above CRP No. 155712023, with costs for lack of merits. Between: Abdul Raheem, S/o Abdul Hussain, Aged about 70 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Kusangi Vittage Tekmal Mandal, Medak District. ...PETTTTONER(S) AND

1. l\4inpoor Bhoomaiah (DIED) PER LRs., Medak District 2. [t/inpoor Yellaiah, S/o Minpoor Bhoomaiah Aged about 35 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Chintakunta Village, AndoleMandal, lVledak District.

3. ft/inpoor Raju, S/o Minpoor Bhoomaiah Aged about 32 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Chintakunta Village, AndoleMandal, [Vledak District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. G ANANDAM Counsel for the Respondents: S SHARAT KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO cRP.NO.1557 ()F 2023 ORDER

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order passed by the lunior Civil Judge, at Jogipet in I.A.No.52 of 2023 in OS.No.4B of 20L2, dated

24.02.2023.

2. Petitioners are the respondents-defendants and the respondent is the petitioner-plaintiff in IA.No.52 of 2023 in OS.No.48 of 2012.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-respondents submits that the trial Court ought to have seen that the suit is for simplicitor injunction, no Advocate Commissioner can be appointed in the absence of .circumstances warranting appointment and has committed manifest error in allowing the application in the absence of any specific finding recorded in support of the appointment. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the propefty either with reference to the boundaries or extent of the land and hut committed materiaI irregularity in not appreciating the evidence\n record with reference to the law governing the subject and it amounts to not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it. The learned trial Court erred in observing that it is necessary to fix up the boundaries of lands in Sy.No.577 and Sy.No.578 with the assistance of 217 BRMR,J cRP_1557_2023 a Surveyor, which would amounts to gathering the evidence and to protract tlre litigation which is not the spirit of the law. counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Nerudu Srinivas Reddy and another Vs. Neerudu Sunanda @ Sunanda Reddy @ Sripathy Sunanda Reddyl, (2) Naseeb Deen and Another Vs. Harnek Singh2. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner submits that the

4. learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to fix the boundaries of lands in Sy.Nos.577 and 578 and the Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Couft under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and the interference of the Court should be if an error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law. Counsel further submits that DW.1 in his cross-examination has stated that there is no connection with the land in Sy.No.577 and suit land i.e., Sy.No.578. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and others3, (2) ouseph Mathai & Others Vs. M.Abdul Khadira, (3) Varala Ramachandra Vs. .Reddy I '2o1G (3) ALD 49 2 RtR zotg HP 173 3 t983 Supreme(SC) 319 4 2001 Supreme(SC) 1540 / / l : : I I 7 I I a-.) 317 BRMR,J cRP_1557_2023 Mekala Yadi Reddys, (4) M.Yadaiah and another Vs. M.chilkamma and two others6, (5) G.Surender Reddy Vs. Smt.M.LakshmiT.

5. Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the constitution of India is limited to the extent that if the orders passed by the learned trial Court are error apparent on the face of the record and extraordinary powers shall not be exercised in a routine manner. See Mohd. Yunus3 and Ouseph Mathai's caseo.

6.1. Respondent is the plaintiff in OS.No.48 of 20L2, he filed the suit for perpetual injunction stating that he raised maize and redgram crop and the petitioners-respondents-defendants tried to damage the crop on 08. tO.2OL2 and he tried to resist them with the help of adjacent land holders. The suit schedule property is agricultural land bearing Sy.No.578 admeasuring Ac.03-00 guntas situated at Chintakunta Village of Andole Mandal, Medak District with specific boundaries.

6.2. It is the further case of the respondent-petitioner-plaintiff in the plaint that the total extent of the land in Sy.No.578 is Acs.03-19 guntas, out of which he has purchased an extent of Ac.03-00 guntas under registered document No.2141/L987 from Minpogr Shivaiah who s cRp No.1B5 of 2010 dated 02.06.2010 of the High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad 6 cRP No.294 of 2018 dated 02.12..202t of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad 7 2024 Supreme(Online)(TEl) 26025 1 I ! I I I I I ! I l 417 BRMR,J cRP_1557_2023 is none other than the father of the petitioner No.1-respondent No'1- defendant No.1. petitioners who are the defendants in the suit filed their written

7. statement contending that the boundaries in .the sale deed are different with the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property and that the petitioner No.1-respondent No.1-defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of agricultural land in Sy.No.577 admeasuring Acs.03-18 guntas and the piaint schedule property is part and parcel of the petitioner No.1-respondent No.l-defendant No.1 land'

8.1, In Nerudu Srinivas Reddy's caset, the High Court observed that the appointment of Advocate Commissioner at belated stage cannot be granted.

8.2. In Naseeb Deen's case', the High Court observed that the Coutt has to be satisfied that a local investigation is necessary for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute.

9. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent-petitioner- plaintiff in tA.No.S2 of 2023 which goes to show that the total extent of land in Sy.Ngl578 is Acs.03-19 guntas and the total exterit of the J'2 land in Sy.No.57B is Acs.06-00 guntas. The affidavit further goes to show that petitioner No.2-respondent No.2-defendant No.2 is examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to 83 and in the cross- examination he stated that the total extent of land in Sy.No.578,is / Jj : I 1 i t: t; s17 BRMR,J cRP_1557_2023 Acs.06-00 guntas out of which he is in possession of Acs.03-00 guntas and the remaining Acs.O3-00 guntas is in possession of one shakeer and there is no connection with the land of Sy.No.577 to the suit land.

10. The cross-examination of DW.1 (petitioner No.2 herein) goes to show that the entire extent of land in sy.No.578 is Acs.06-00 guntas and there is no connection with the land of sy.No.577 to that of the suit land (i.e., Sy.No.57B).

11. The prayer in the application i.e., IA.No.52 of 2OZ3 is to fix the boundaries of sy.Nos.577 and 578. As stated supra that the total extent of land in Sy.No.57B is Acs.03-19 guntas and the total extent of land in Sy.No.578 is to an extent of Acs.06-00 guntas. The learned trial court has lost sight of the same and the prayer made in the application for appointment of Advocate commissioner is to fix the boundaries of Sy.Nos.577 and 578. There is no point in appointing an Advocate commissioner to fix the boundaries of sy.Nos.577 and 578 in view of the fact that the alleged claim made by the respondent- petitioner-plaintiff is to an extent of Acs.03-00 guntas in sy.No.57B and the total extent of land in Sy.No.578 is Acs.06-00 guntas. No useful purpose will be served in appointing an Advocate commissioner to fix the boundaries. As the evidence of the parties is already concluded and the respondent-plaintiff has to establish his case basing on the evidence and the documents filed thereon as the , suit is forleqpetual injunction. \ \ 617 BRMR,J cRP_1557_2023

12.1. The decision in Varala Ramachandra Reddys is not applicable to the case on hand as the properties of both the pafties are in the same survey number and the defendants therein have disturbed the boundaries during pendency of the suit. t2.2. In M.Yadaiah's case6, Advocate Commissioner is appointed to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property more particularly to observe the road that leads from the main road to the land of the petitioner. t2.3. In G.Surender Reddy's case7, Appellate court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to know whether the two properties are different properties or a single property.

13. This Court having gone through the decisions cited by the re.spondent's counsel find that they are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply in the present case. L4. The orders passed by the learned trial Court are perverse and there is an error apparent on the face of the record which requires interference of this Court under Afticle 227 of the Constitution of India.

15. In view of the reasons above, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. ,, 2 -/ i i I 717 BRMR,J cRP_1557_2023

16. In the result, CRP is allowed and the order passed by the learned trial court in IA.No.52 of 2oz3 in os.No.48 of 2012 dated

24.02.2023 is set aside without costs and consequenfly petition is dismissed. Interim orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. U.SUDHA ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFTCER \ To,

1. The Junior Civil J_u.dgg -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at Jogipet, MedakDistrict.

2. One CC to SRl. c ANANDAM Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to SRl. S SHARAT KUMAR Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies PK W ,f / S HE 1 I () ?s ?[?t Jl"I * * HIGH COURT BRMRJ DATED t1411112025 CRP.No.1557 of 2023 ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PEITITION. I I ;,, : I E I I i \