The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the ResPondent The Court made the following : Sri Basa ChanakYa : Sri P Sri Ram : ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI N/\ {DA C.R.P.No.29 06 0F 202s ORDER Heard Sri Basa Chanakya, learned counli{'l appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri P. Sri Fl; rm, learned counsel appearing on behatf of the respondent

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrievec by the order dated 16.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.1562 of 2023 irr C.S. No. 213 of 2022 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cun-Addt. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy.

3. The petitioner in the present Civil Revision r ]tition is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 213 of 2022 on the file of I Adl . Junior Civit Judge-cum-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, which is filed seeking prayer as under "(a) to declare the plaintiff as absolute owner r ,f the suit schedule plot; (b) consequently direct the defendant to clr liver vacant I possession of the suit schedule plot to the plaintiff ; (c) costs; 2 (d) any other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice".

4. The oetitioner herein filed I.A. No. 1562 of 2O23 in O.S.No.213 oI 2022 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil ud e-cum-A First Class Sanoareddv with Draver as under:- "Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be aoooint an dvocate Commissioner to oleased to locate the suit schedule olot admeasurinq 5OO So Yards in Sv. No.13OlPart; situated at Kollur Villaqe, Ramachandra Puram Mandal. Sanoa dv District and Mandal Sale Deeds with the help of Layout Plan, justice and interest of Revenue Surveyor in the equity".

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petltioner mainly contends that the order of the Court below dated L6.07.2025 passed in I.A. No. L562 of 2023 in O.S. No. 2L3 of 2022 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Addl. ludicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to locate the suit schedule plot in Plot No.5 in Sy.No.130/part 3 admeasuring 500 Sq. yards situated at Ko lur Village, Ramachandra Puram Mandal, Sangareddy District v ith the help of lay out plan sale deeds and Mandal Revenue Surveyor is based on misapplication of law as appointment tf Advocate Commissioner does not amount to collection of evi I lncer as the Advocate Commissioner report only aids the Court r nd does not supplant the parties burden of proof and the refus.rl by the Trial Court at threshold stage amounts to denial of pro(:, rdural rights and fair adjudication.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of r.l e petitioner further contends that the pleadings in the pres-ent : rse reveal a bona fide dispute about property identification anc boundaries and the order impugned results in gross procedur; I unfairness since the petitioner specifically prays for a Conrtissioner to locate and demarcate the schedule property using title documents, layout plans with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor and the same is only to enable the Tr al Court to comprehend the physical identity and boundaries of he property in dispute and not to establish title or possession br t to provide clarity for adjudication, since Commissioner,s rrl )ort is not conclusive evidence and it is subject to objection; and cross- examination by both parties and it merely provides,t neutral fact 4 finding on location and features but however proof of title and possession is required to be established by oral and documentary evidence. 7. Based on the aforesaid submissions the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitaoner contends that the present C.R.P. has to be allowed as prayed for. L The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in I.A.No.t562 ot 2023 in O.S.No.213 of 2022 on the file of I Additional lunior Civil Judge-cum-Addl. ludicial First Ctass Magistrate, Sangareddy objects the allowing of the said I.A., as prayed for contending that petitioner is trying to gather the evidence by way of appointment of Commissioner which is not permissible under law since the petitioner who approached the Court has to prove petitioner's title and possession with documents and oral evidence and the appointment of Advocate Commissioner is nothing but collection of evidence as such the petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. Ab are oerusalo fther ord indicates that it is soecifica Itvav erred at Par a4an d Dara 7 f the affidavit 5 filed bv the oetitioner ln su DD(t of I.A. No. : i62 of 2023 tn O.S. No. 2 3of2()22 on the file of I AddI . Junior Civil Jud e-cum-Addl. JudiciaI First Sanqaredd yasun der: Maoistrate, cl ss "4. I submit that Magali Kistaiah was the c wner of land in Sy.No.130, he executed Reg. GpA No. 93/{} ) in favourof G. lithender Reddy authorizing him to se I his land in Sy.No.130. The said land was converted intc plots, apart from land in Sy. Nos. 132, 133 and 131, situtted at Kollur Village as per layout from Gram panchayit. The GpA holder offered to sell the plots and petitioit rr's husband negotiated and paid full sale consideratiiln and got registered the suit schedule property in t re name of petitioner vide Regd. Sale Deed doc. No.4j, B/g9, dated 28.09.1989. The petitioner has been in peacei il possession since the date of purse. The petitioner paid ft ;. 1000/_ for Eayout regularization on LZ.LO.2OZO vid( App. No. C/GGMC/073549/ 2020". "7. I submit that the respondent/defendant a,l :ged in para No.17 of the written statement that fruit ll )aring trees were planted, in fact bushes and shrubs were there in the suit schedule plot, when I visited the suit s( ledule plot. The physical features of suit schedule plot v/ ll be known only by appointing an Advocate Commissioner o locate the suit schedule plot as per the lay out and th€ boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds with the help of Mandal Revenue Surveyor and note down physical fea:ures of the suit schedule plot".

10. In the written statement filed bv the herean in the marn suit O. . No. 213 of 2022 i l esDo :Dara 8in ifically aver dbY he ! esDo dent I pa cular it ls sDec heretnasu er: 6 "8. This defendant submits that, as stated supra the plaintiff neither the owner nor possessor of the suit schedule plot and there is no existence of the suit schedule plot and there is no layout sanctioned plan approved by the competent authority as per the AP Gram panchayat Act, and the land is not converted from agriculture to non- agriculture, even as per the averments of the plaint itself discloses the fact. Consequently, the alleged so called plot in existence is nothing but created by the plaintiff for ulterior motives".

11. This Court taking into consideration the specific pleas put forth by the petitioner at para '4' and para '7' of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of I.A.No.1562 of 2023 in O.S. No. 213 of 2022 (referred to and extracted above) and the specific averments made by the respondent herein in written statement filed by the respondent in the main suit O.S. No. 213 of 2022 at para 'B' in particular (referred to and extracted above), opines that the Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed at the threshold and the same is nothing but an effort treating as a measure to gather evidence.

12. This Court vide Judgment dated 22.07.2022 in CRp No.1233 of 2022 dealing with an identical situation, wherein the Trial Court had dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code in i.O.*o.rn4 of 2018, arising out of O.S.No.901 of 2012, had dismissed the said C.R.P.No.1233 of 7 2022 holding that the trial Court had rightly ,ejected the application since the same would amount to ,: tllecting the evidence through the Advocate Commissioner leport. eww s tak 2L.06.2010 in CR P No.2955of2OO8 reoo rted - n 2O1O SCC Online AP 451 in "BATCHU NARAyANA RA(! v. BATCHU , dr ent d I lt N N SIM RA

13. This Court also takes note of the fact th; t this Court in its catena of Judq ments enlisted below, :onsistentlv held that aooointment of Advocate Commissrc rer lnas uit Suit for ! ion or in a lnt u nction simolici tor to note do,a n ohvsi ca! ton of evide ce. features amounts to coll \ (i) SAGI VI]AYA RAMCHANDRA RAJU V KOPPISETTI SATYANARAYANA, reported ir 2009 (6) ALT 353, (ii) BATCHU NARAYANA RAO v. BATCHt. VENKATA NARASIMHA RAO, reported in 2010 (5) At- ) page 83, (iii) KODURU SESHA REDDY v. cOTI IGUNDALA VENKATA RAMI REDDy, reported in 20(), (1) ALD Page 372, 8 (iv) YENUGONDA BALREDDY v. MANEMMA, reported in 2011 (3) ALT Page 232.

14. This Court also takes note of the fact that the suit is at the stage of settlement under Section 89 CPC and meanwhile the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present petition to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to locate the suit schedule property and hence this Court opines that there is no illegality in the order impugned dated

16.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.1562 ol 2023 in O.S.No.213 ol 2022 on.the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy and hence duly considering the view of the Courts in the Judgments referred to and extracted above, the present C.R.P., stands dismissed since the same is devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TION OFFICER To

1. The I Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, SangareddY.

2. One CC to Sri Basa Chanakya Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P. Sri Ram Advocate [OPUC] 4. ].rt" co C.ari..s Mzt! HIGH COURT DATED: 2510912025 I ORDER CRP.No.2906 of 2025 B tlE S rAtt ( o() t ><. * 1 u,'l 1ii z : -Ire ^r\ I DISMISSING THE CRP Jrs zlzlze .