The High Court · 2025

5. Smt. G.Lalitha, w/o A.Srinivas Reddy aged 45 years, occ: Housewife, R/o. Bijnapally Village, Bijnapally Mandal, Nagarkurnool District ...Petitioners/Defendants AND Vavilla Sravan Kumar, S/o Bucha Reddy aged 34 yrs, occ: Emplyee R/o H.No.1-9, Rajapet, Wanaparthy District, Presently working as Manager H.D.F.C Bank Nagarkurnool ...RespondenUPlai ntiff lA NO: 1 OF 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 suspend the order dated 71412O25 1.A.No.239 of 2024 in O.S.No.'14 of 2024, on the fi'le of the Principal District Judge at Nagarkurnool pending final disposal of the CRP. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V.HANUMANTH RAO Counsel for the Respondent: SRI B.SRINIVASULU The Court made the following: ORDER .a THE TION'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRT'MALA DEVI EADA CTVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2 198 oF 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is hled seeking to quash the order dated O7.O4 2025 in I.A.No.239 of 2024 in O'S'No'14 of 2024 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court")

2. Heard the submissions of Sri V' Hanmanth Rao, learned counsel for the peti[ioners and Sri B' Srinivasulu, Ieamed counsel for the respondent. [,e arned cou nsel for the petitioners have submitted that a

3. petition to appoint Advocate Commissioner for examining physical features of the land was hled by the rcspondents herein and that the trial Court has allowed the petition by granting more than the relief that is asked in the petition. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present petit ion is hled. He further submitted that the Advocate Commissioner cannot collect the evidence, but he can only examine the physical features. Hence, he prayed to set aside the orders passed in LA.No 239 of 2024 and pass appropriate orders. He further submitted that lhey do not have any objection if Advocate Commissioner is appointed for examining the physical features, but nolhing more than that can be done by the Advocate DTD,J CRP No.219B 2025 Commissioner as directed by the trial Court, while allowing the petition under challenge.

4. The respondent counsel has submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and that the present suit is frled for Declaration of Title and that the petitroner herein is claiming land under a non-existing survey number. Therefore, he pleaded that the physical features of the suit schedule property may be examined through an Advocate Commissioner. Hence, he prayed the trial Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner which was rightly allowed by the trial Court. He therefore, prayed to uphold the orders of the trial Court.

5. Perused the record. The parties herein are referred to as they wcre arrayed before [he tria] Court.

6. I.A.No.239 of 2024 is liled seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under Order-XXIX, Rule-9 for examining the physical features of the suit schedule property. The contention of the petitioners belore the trial Court is that they are the title holders of suit schedule propert5r and that the respondents have no right, interest or title, but have developed a sore eye on their property as it is adjacent to the R & B road and it is commercial in nature. It is further elicited that all tJre respondents in this ,1 ',1 3 ETD,J CRP No.2198 2025 petition have frled a suit against him vide O'S'No'41 of 2023 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalarkurnool, by showing false boundaries with the help of faise and created documents and that they had obtained an Injunction in their favour and that the suit is pending adjudication. It is his further case that he has also hled a suit for Injunction against the respondents in O.S.No.455 of 2023 in which the village and caste elders assured him that they would settle the matter and thus, he has not pressed the said suit on 24.07.2024. It is his case that when he visited the petition schedule property for further work on the land, the respondents came along with their men and tried to dispossess him from the petition schedule property, but on timely interference, through his supporters, he could resist' Therefore, he frled the suit i.e., O.S.No.14 of 2024 for Declaration of Title and in the said suit, he has filed this I.A seeking a prayer tJlat the Court may appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure the property, fix the boundaries of the suit schedule property as well as the property of the respondents as per [he parental documents of the respondents.

6. The respondents in the petition have hled a counter before the trial Court contending that the respondents are in possession of the petition schedule property, and that they have been z I \ ETD,J cRP No.2196 2025 4 enjoying ttre same. They further contended that boundaries of their land are already fixed and that they have erected electrical transformer and that there is a Darga in the said land. That the respondents have also carried out certain developmental activities such as making cement bricks, that their land is fenced and a tin shed is also existing, agricuitural work is carried out ald further that it is irrigated by a bore well which has electricity connection. It is their contention that the petitioners do not have any right or title over the said land and have tried to illegally interfere with the possession of the respondents, and that their suit vide O.S-No.41 of 2023 is also pending between the parties. It is further contended that it is for the plaintiff-petitioner to prove his title and posscssion of the properly and that the Advocate Commissioner cannot prove the same. They therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Perused the record

8. O.S.No. 14 of 2024 is filed seeking declaration of title and other conscquential reliefs. The said suit would be decided based on the title deeds and other linked documents which have to be put forth by the plaintiff there in i.e., the respondent herein. An Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property which would ETD,J CRP No.2198 2025 5 include the exact Iocation of the property so as to the survey number and the boundaries existing with regard to the suits schedule property. If the ptaintiff succeeds to prove his title' then in such a case the further steps of hxing the boundaries and demarcating the boundaries woulcl arise But at the threshold of the suit, they cannot appoint an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the boundaries depending on the documents put forth by the parties. \ The grievance of the petitioncrs herein is that the Court has g. assigned every duty to the Advocate Commissioner' so as to conclude in a de nouo trial and the Commissioner is given examining the documents and fix the the documcnts r,'hich is not just and boundaries according to proper. Since there is a title dispute yet to be adjudicated in the unlimited powers as to suit, demarking the boundaries ers per the documents produced by the parties, would not be proper in this case Horvever' an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to notc down Lhe physical features of the suit schcdule properry s() as to its survey number and the boundaries.

10. Therefore, the Civil Rcvision Petition is partly allowed' modifying the Orders passcd by the trial Court in I A No'239 of 2024 in O.S.No. 14 of 2024 bv the l'rincipal District and Sessions 5 E-TD,J CRP No.2198 2O2S ( Judge, Nagarkurnool, and as a result, the appointment of Advocate Commissioner is upheld only to the extent of noting down the physical features of the suit schedule property, while the other duties entrusted to the Advocate Commissioner are set aside. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- AHIIIED ABIN.ILLA I(HAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge at Nagarkurnool. 2. One CC to Sri V.HANUMANTH RAO Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri B.SRINIVASULU Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:22l0gl2025 ORDER CRP.No.2198 of 2025 to3THE g 6 1 6 y,lll ll.fr * t * ALLOWING THE CTUL REVIS]ON PETITION (" A +,