The High Court · 2025

Petltion under section 151 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders dated 01-oz -2024 passed' in l.A.No.6 of 2024 in l.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S No 58 of 2023 on the fite of the Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under scs/srs (poA) Act-cum-lll Additional District and ses-sions Judge, at Khammam, pending disposal of the Revision petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: Podila 9.reenu @-Srinivas Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, Age: 50 years, Occ. Business, --' R/o. H.No.4-1-642, Rotary Nagar, Khanapuram Ha-veli, Ktiammam City ind- District ...Petitioner/RespondenURespondenUPetitioner/plaintiff l AND Penugonda Upendar, S/o. Narasimha Rao, Age: 62 years, Occ:Business, R/o- H.No.2-3-1 't 2, Gandhichowk, Khammam City and District. ... RespondenUPetitioner/Petitioner/RespondenUDefendant Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed n support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order dated. 09-08-2024 in l.A.No.1 ot 2024 in CRP No.2419 ol 2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in granting the lnterim Suspension of Order and Decree dated: 01-07 -2024 in l.A.No.6 of 2024 in l.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.58 of 2023 passed by the Court of the Hon'ble Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCsiSTs (POA) Actcum-lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, at: Khammam & consequentially dismiss l.A.No.1 of 2024 in CRP No.24'19 ol 2024. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Srinivas Emani Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Tupakula Nikhil The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CrvII, REVISION PETITION No. 2419 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is Iiled aggrieved by the order, dated 01.07.2024, passed in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2O23 in O.S.No.S8 of 2023 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs-cum-III Additional District arld Sessions Judge at Khammam.

2. O.S.No.58 of 2023 is filed by respondent/plaintiff against petitioner/defendant for declaration. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.2 of 2023 was filed by respondent/plaintiff herein to grant ad-interim exp-parte injunction order in favour of respondent/plaintiff restraining the petitioner/defendant herein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondent/plaintiff over the petition schedule property. I.A.No.6 of 2024 was frled by respondent/plaintiff to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to verify the boundaries by fixing them as the differences in boundaries from the petition schedule property and property of defendant. The trial Court allowed the application on O1 .O7.2O24. Aggrieved by the order of the trial t,l 2 Court, the petitioner/ defendant herein filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the record' l,earned counsel for petitioner contended that the trial 4. court did not consider the crucial aspects that the respondent filed I.A.No.6 of 2024 to collect the evidence as he had no case in I.A.No.2 of 2023 and the schedule shown in I'A'No'2 of 2023 and LA.No.6 of 2024 are different and respondent suffered a decree in O.S.No.9S of 2OlI and it was confirmed in A'S'No' 116 of2ol3.La,a,doesnotpermittocollectevidencebyseeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to locafize and to do survey at the time of seeking injunction as the injunction petition is to be considered only basing on the material available on record. There is no document filed by the plaintiff for the plaint schedule and to the relief sought in the suit and there will be no record or any basis for the Advocate Commissione:: or the Mandal Surveyor to verif the boundaries or fixing the boundaries as sought in I'A'No'6 of 2024' 3 Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the order of the tria_l Court.

5. O.S.No.Sg of 2023 is filed to declare the respondent/plaintiff as absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and for injunction. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.2 of 2023 was filed by respondent/plaintiff to grant ad-interim exp-parte injunction order in favour of respondent/plaintiff restraining.the petitioner/defendant herein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondent/plaintiff over the petition schedule property, in fact the application is filed atong with the suit. The contention of the petitioner is that the suit for injunction cannot be accepted and also contended that as it is at the initial stage, the said application is to be dismissed.

6. In the written statement filed by defendant, he stated that he constructed the compound wall initially and two A.C. Sheet Roof Rooms and the two roomed house was allotted with H.No.4-l-641 (new) corresponding to its old H.No.4_1 _lZ5/lO (old) and the same was also assessed to property Tax in his I 4 narne by Khanapuram Haveli Grampanchayat. When plaintiff and his wife tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendant's house and site, he hled O'S'No'95 of . 2O11 for perpetual injunction. The trial Court after considering the. arguments decreed the suit on 22'll'2OL3' Against the said judgment, plaintiff and his wife filed A.S.No. 116 of 2013 and the same was dismissed on 3I'12'2O19 confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

7. I.A.No.6 of 2024 was fi1ed by respondent/plaintiff to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. He stated'that defendant is making hectic efforts to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment and as there was differences in boundaries of the suit schedule property and the property of the defendant which mentioned in Doc.No.4113 of -2006 dated 23.05.2006 and the boundaries of suit schedule property in O.S.No.9S of 2OII, it is just and necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to verify the boundaries and to fix the differences in boundaries with the help of Mandal Surveyor. 5

8. Petitioner/defendant filed a counter in I.A.No.6 of 2024, and he stated that the boundaries shown in petition schedule property are self serving and there is no document wherefrom the same can be ascertained, whereas, the site of respondent can very well be identified by the boundaries shown in the registered sale deed. The decree was passed in O.S.No.9S of 2O11 and the same was confirmed in A.S.No. 116 of 2O13 and the said findings are a futile exercise and contrary to law. As the respondent filed the suit for declaration, it is for him to be sure about its localization and it cannot be. done through Advocate Commissioner as it amounts to collection of evidence. Moreover, the suit is in the initial stage, therefore, requested the Court to dismiss the petition. I I I t 9 . Admittedly, the suit is in the initial stage and for granting of ad-interim injunction, an application is fiIed along with the plaint. When plaintiff approached the Court for declaration of the suit, it is for him to prove his case by duly submitting the oral and documentary evidence instead of coming up with an application for appointment of advocate Commissioner to fix 6 up the boundaries with the help of Mandal Surveyor and it clearly amounts to collection of evidence. Therefore, this Court fmds that thr: trial Court though extracted several citations, failed to appreciate the facts properly allowed the application and it is liab1e to be set aside.

10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order of the trial Court dated O1.O7.2O24, passed in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in LA.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No-58 of

2023. There srhall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// sd/- A. SRINIVASA RFDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /a SECTION OFFICER

1. The Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Khammam

2. One CC to Sri Srinivas Emani, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Tupakula Nikhil, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies Kam/gh HIGH COURT' DATED:2010112025 ORDER CRP.No.2419 of 2024 1ilE.S14 ,6 Bo a o (J 1 I rEB 2025 Dc SoaTC ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION I i l