Veera Kotamma Veeramma vs Vallapudasu

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 stay all further proceedings in l.A.No. 939 OF 2023 in O.S.No. 1043 OF 20.17 on the file of Xl Additional Diskict Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, pending disposal of the above C.R.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. RAVTNDRA REDDY Gounsel for the Respondent: SRI Y. KOTESWAR RAO The Court made the following: ORDER -t ff- 'l THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CML REVISION PETITION No-22O8 OF 2024 ORDER: This rer'ision petition is filed challenging the ordt:r dated

12.06.2024 passed in IA.No.939 of 2023 in OS.No.1043 of 2Ol7 on the file ,rf the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge' Rangareddy District, at LB.Nagar. (r" -!

2. The. petitioner herein is respondent/ defendarrt and respondent leerein is petitioner/plaintiff in IA.No.939 of 2023 in OS.No.1043 of 2017.

3. The respondent herein filed IA.No.939 of 2023 in the said suit under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code (1br short 'CPCJ udth a prayer to appoint al Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of localization of land in Survey No.52/AA admeasurin;3 Acs-2.36 guntas, situated at Nagire'Cdypally Village, MatLeshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, with the help of A:;sistant Director, Survey and Lands li.ecords, Rangareddy District, and to direct the Advocate Comrrrissioner to take photographs and videography of the exect.rtion of f-y 2 SKS,J CRP.No.22O8 OF 2024 warrant. After hearing both sides, the trial Court allowed the :said I.A., uid.e order dated 12.06.2024. Aggrieved thereby, ttris revision petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri P.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for revision petitioner, and Sri Koteshwar Rao, learned counsel for respondent.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the trial Court committed a grave error in allowing IA.No.939 of 2023 which wa3 {iled by the respondent. He contended that the same would amount to collecting evidence through the back door, which is not permissible under the law. He further 'contended that the petition frled by the respondent is not majntainable either in law or on facts, and asserted that filing of said petition is a brazen attempt to collect evidence, which is not allowed under the law. He lamented that the trial Court failed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard. He averred that the petitioner did not encroach on the land in question, contrary to the allegations made by the respondent. He disputed the contention of respondent that the petitioner removed the boundary stones, stating that this allegation is false. f SKS,J CRP.No.22 J8 OF 2024

6. Learnr:d counsel for petitioner had incessantly highlighted certain discrepancies in the contentions raised by respondent in his petitlon ftled before the trial Court, and pointed out that the respondent claimed to have annexed a sketch plan of the suit schedule property to the plaint, but in realit5r, no suctr sketch plan was an:nexed. He divulged that the said aspect was brought to the notice of the tria-l Court, as well as, to the respor:rdent by the petitioner, through her written statemen.t ard counter a-ffidavit. Ad,Citionally, he emphasized that the petitione,r is the lr-"? owner and possessor of the adjacent land, which is clear from the registere'd sale deed obtained by the respondent- l.'urther, that the Eerstern boundary of the land purchased by the respondent shows the name of the petitioner's husbanil, which establishes the ownership and possession of petitioner r,rver the adjacent land. He concluded his submissions advocating that the petitioner, along with her family members, raised a mango orchard on the adjacent land ald fenced it with cement poles and barbed w"ire, and that the same would establish t.hat the petitioner dicl not encroach on the land ofrespondent, as alleged by him before the trial Court. In support of the said contt:ntions, he relied on the judgment passed by this Court in Vallapudasu Veera Kotamma Veeramma Vs. Vallapudasu f .*,, "tr 4 SKS,J CRP.No.2208 OF 2024 Surambhal.Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the revision petition, setting aside the impugtred order.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent, vehemenfly opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, stating that there are no infirmities or illegalities in the impugned order and that the triai Court has rightly allowed the petition arld appointed an Advocate Commissioner, as there was a dispute between the parties with regard to the suit schedule properlr. He contended that originally the suit was filed for recovery of possession and also for mense profits, asserting that the respondent is the owner of subject lald to an extent of Acs.2.36 guntas ald that the same was purchased by respondent by way of registered sale deed and that earlier also it was surveyed by the Surveyor and the Surveyor fixed the boundaries stones which were removed by the petitioner. Therefore, while advocating that the appointment of Advocate Commissioner was just and necessarJz for resolution of dispute between the parties and contending that the trial Court righfly allowed the petition, appointing an Advocate Commissioner, he l AIROnLine 2023 TEL 210 5 SKS,J CRP.No.2il08 OF 2024 prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petition, stat:lng that the same iacks merits.

8. Having regard to rival submissions made ald on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that suit for recovery of possession and. mense prolits alleging that the suit property was grabbed illegally by way of dispossession in the year 2072, .,vhereas, it is the specific contention that rrever an instance of encroachment of the subject land was attempted q-.'f and that both the parties are having documenrs for their own respective properties. It is pleaded by learned coutrsel for respondent that the appointment of an Advocate Comrr:Lissioner was onl1, to the extent of localization of suit property, and that the dispute regarding existence of land in survey numbers in question, can be decided only after surveying the same.

9. At thir; stage, it is imperative to note that though learned counsel for petitioner contended that there is no tippan for \ identifring the suit property, it is noted that if there is no tippan, the Advocate Commissioner will file the samr:r in his report, and if there are €rny revenue records readily arrailable, the Advocate Commissioner, with the hetp of Surveyor, has to survey the subject land. Further, though learned counsel for ,-.- 6 SKS,J CRP-No.2208 OF 2024 petitioner relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Vallapudasu (supra) the same does not come to aid of petitioner in view of factual differences. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that there are no illegalities in the impugned order and that the trial Court has rightly allowed the petition filed by respondent herein, appointing al Advocate Comrnissioner. There are no merits in this revision petition ald the same is liable to be dismissed. {-. .i

10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that OS.No.1O43 of 2Ol7 pertains to the year 2017, tLre trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stald closed. //TRUE COPY// sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR sEcrlo N OFFICER The Xl Additional District and Sessions Judge' Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. o;" Cdl; Sri Pasham Ravindra Reddy, Advo-cate- [OPUC] 5. O"e CC to Sri Y, Koteswar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Plp/kam To, 1 6 HIGH COURT DATED:0310312025 ORDER {-'. ? cRP.No.22oB of 2024 /' ,.. i,:) :tO \:,+ \, DISMISSING THE C.R.P. Ot** {' :::-'\ -::-: --l,

77.',rr[ $La 19 fi,qfl ?ffi z * o €sp A CHEO i