Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar. Between v. B. Kondaiah, S/o. Kurmaiah

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 O.S.No.61 of 2014 on,the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xlv Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar, pending disposal of the main C.R.P. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. Narendar Jalli Counsel for the Respondents: Thoom Srinivas The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.27 4of 5 ORDER : The instant civit Revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 28.or.2o2s in I.A.No.3gr of 2o2s in o.s.No.6 | of 2or4 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XlV Additional Judicial Mrrgistrate of First class, Ranga Reddy District, at Hayathnagar' (for short, .the impugned orderr|. 2' Heard Mr. Narendar Jalli, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Thoom srinivas, learned counsel for the respond.ent. 3' Vide tlrc impugned order, the Court below has dismissed the above I-A. which was filed by the petitioner under Order XXVJ Rule 9 read with Se:tion 151 of civil procedure code, 190g, with a prayer to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to identify / localize the suit schedule property and property belonging to petitio n?, / defendant, and to distinguish it with the petitioner,s schedule of property.

4. Initially, the suit o.S.No.6 L oi 2014 was fired by the respondent / plaintiff against the petitioner / defendant seeking for perpetual I \ \ , / .t l.. Iii it! injunction against the petitioner / defendant in respect of suit schedule property consisting of 2s2 sq.yds. situate in survey Nos.g1 and 115 of Munaganoor village, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

5. The above suit is one which was filed in the year 2014. The pleadings are complete, and trial has also been completed, and the suit itself is in the process of finat hearing. It is at this juncture that the above I.A. , viz., I.A.No.387 of 2025 in o.S.No.6 L of 2014 had been filed by the petitioner / defendant seeking for identification of the suit schedule property with that of the respondent / ptaintiff,s property. It was this I.A. which was rejected by the Trial Court uid.e the impugned order that led to filing of the instant civil Revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner had become essential so as to avoid any unwarranted complication since the property of petitioiner f defendant is a property adjoining the property of respondent / plaintiff, and therefore the petitioner / defendant cannot be prevented from enjoying the property that is in his exclusive possession. According to him, the respondent / plaintiff is clairning a perpetual injunction on the property that is situate in Survey Nos.81 ard 11S of Munaganoor village, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, whereas the petitioner / defendant is the owner and possessor of the property that is situated \ \ \rr in Survey i\os.8, 9, 10, Ll, L2, 13, 14 and 15 in Survey Nos.BO/A. In this conne,:tion, learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant referred to the reg: stered sale deed that he had filed in respect of the said properties, and therefore wanted an identification of this property by way of appcintment of an Advocate-Commissioner.

7. on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff, opposing the Revision, contended that the impugned order is perfectly ju,stified in the factual matrix of the case and the s€une does not warrar:.t any interference whatsoever. He further contended that considerinll the factual matrix of the case and also the findings given by the Tri,il Court, no strong case for invocation of extra-ordinary supervisoq, jurisdiction of this High Court had been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant; and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the instant Civil Revision Petition.

8. Havirg heard the contentions of both parties and also on a perusal of the records, the above I.A., viz., I.A.No.3B7 of 2o2S in O.S.No.6l ,tf 2014, itself had been filed by the petitioner / defendant at a very bt:lated stage when the trial in the above suit had reached at its fag end, i.e., at the stage of final arguments. Secondly, the findings arrived at by the Trial Court would also reflect that, on €ul. earlier occasion, l.he petitioner / defendant had filed similar I.A., irz., r d -Tl tiI I I I ' I.A.No.97 of 2015, seeking for appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner and the said application was rejected by the Trial Court on 14.09.2015 observing that an attempt was being mad.e by the petitioner / defendant herein for collecting evidence before adjudication of the case. g. Surprisingly, there has been no challenge to the said order passed:by the Trial Court at that point of time, and now the petitioner / defendant has come up with the second application, viz. I.A.No.387 of 2025 in O.S.No.61 of 2014 with the sarne relief in the same suit which in the opinion of this Court would not be maintainable. Further, no cogent reason had also been assigned by the learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant as to how the above second application would be sustainable in the given factual matrix of the CASC

10. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is in full agreement with the findings given by the Trial Court while rejecting I.A.No.387 of 2025 in O.S.No.61 of 2OL4 uide ttre impugned order, particularty for the reason that the above suit is one for perpetual injunction, and therefore in a suit for perpetual injunction the requirement for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner would not be otherwise required as the nature of evidence required for proving a case of I granting injunction is not to be based on the Advocate Commissioner,s report, but on the basic ingredients required for granting of injunction. Therefore, ':he Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and is a:cordingly dismissed. No costs.

11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any shall stand closed. i.l: \ To, SD/. V KAVITHA DEPUW REGISTRAR d SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII The prl Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xlv Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First class, F.anga Reddy District at Hayathnqql,(rylth records if any) One CC to SRt. Narendar Jalli, Advocate [OPUC] 1 2 One CC to SRl. Thoom Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 3 4. fwo CD Copies % -}il I t TI{E S , i ..... ) .i * ? 1 FIB 71176 * HIGH COURI' DATED:23110t2025 ORDER CRP.No.2764 o12025 CNIL REVTSION PETTTION IS DISMTSSED NO COSTS 2L o