The High Court · 2025

Smt. Narasamma, Wo. Ramudu, aged about 55 years, Occ. Agriq 'l{u1s,. H. No. 8-8-207, Dadarapalle viltage; Gadwal Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal Diskict. q s. Gopal, S/o. Ramulu, aged about 39 years, Occ. Agriculture, R o. H. No. 8-8'-146, Dadarapalle village, Gadwdl Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. Raiu. S/o. Late Ramulu aqed about 36 vears, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 8-d-147 , Dadarapalte villale, Gadwal lr,iandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. (Respondents i to 6 are not necessary parties to this revision) ...Respondents/Defendants ,.1..-r=;-@ *47 IANO:1OF2 024 Petition ur,Jer Section 151 CpC praying that in the circum,;tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the peiitio;, ine Hign Court may O" pf"rr"J io dispen^s^e_with the firing of the certified copy of the impugneo do rket order dated 03/0912024 passed in r.A. No.237 0'f 2023ii l.R. No. izo oI 202? in o.S. No. 293 of 2022 as the petitioner fired neat xerox copy of the same and undertake to fire the certified copl' as and when he courd abre io get it from the Lo\,er court. Counsel for the petitioner :SRt M DAMODAR REDDy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Ms. MALIPEDDI RAJA l..AXMl The Court made the following: ORDER HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CTVIL REVISION PETITION NO,3O57 OF 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

03.09.2024 in I.A.No.237 oI 2024 in LA No 376 of 2!23 in O'S'No'293 of 2022passedby the |unior Civil Judge, Gadwal'

2. Heard M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and no rePresentation on behalf of respondents despite entering apPearance.

3. The petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court' For convenience' the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court'

4.BrieffactsrelevantforadjudicationofthepresentCivilRevision Petition are that plaintiff herein filed suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents herein in respect of land admeasuring Ac 01'39 Gts, bearing Sy.No.173/K3, situated in the revenue village at Paramala Village, Gadwal Mandal, fogulamba Gadwal District(hereafter referred as 'schedule property'). Petitioner herein filed an application I'A'No'376 ol 2023 to appoint an advocate Commissioner, since there is dispute with regard to boundaries of the schedule ProPerty and the said application was allowed bY the trial court and Advocate commissioner 2 CRP No.3057 of was appointec for surveying the schedule property witlr the help of deputy Survt-.1 or. On 20.06.2024, Advocate Commissione r along with deputy survev cl, visited the schedule property for surv,:y, however, respondent arrd adjacent land owners opposed tlr e Advocate Commissioner ancl prevented him from iun,eying t ire schedule property. Thelefore, Advocate Commissioner filecl a r nemo dated 1,5.07.2024 to that effect. Thereafter, I.A.No.237 oI2024 wers filed seeking police protecti,)n to the Advocate Commissioner for sr.Lrveying the schedule property, however, the same was dismissed vicle order dated

03.09.2024. z\ggrieved by the same, present Civil Revision petitioner is filed.

5. Learncd counsel for the petitioner contended that though the respondent opt),)sed the Advocate Commissioner for su rvey of the schedule property, now the respondent filed a counter stat.ing that the they have no objection for providing police aid io the Advocate Commissioner 1o c;111y out the survey. Therefore the imprrgned order dated 03.09.2024, is liable to be set aside. 6 A perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the trial court dismissecl the said application with an observatir )n that the petitioner has to establish his prinn facie proof to seek po)ice aid and / : l i I rr; i I LNA,J, CRP No.3057 of2024 there must be interference of the respondents and obstructing the Advocate Commissioner from entering into the schedule property and that no proof or photograph was filed to show that the respondent was not complying the order of the court' It is relevant to note that the Advocate Commissioner, appointed by the trial court has filed a memo dated 15.07.2024 in which he categorically stated that respondent as well as adjacent owners of the schedule property prevented him. from surveying the schedule Property. However, the trial Court has not considered the memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner' who is an officer of the court appointed for surveying the schedule property' The hial Court has failed to appreciate the memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner and has come to erroneous conclusion that no material is placed on record in proof of resistance by respondent and neighboring land owners for survey of land by Advocate Commissioner' Therefore' impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside' Further respondents have no objection for granting police aid to the Advocate Commissioner for conducting the survey'

7. In view of the above discussions and since the respondents has no objection for providing police aid, in considered opinion of this court the revision deserved to be allowed and accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, I A' No'237 of 2024 stands 4 CRP ,\1o.3057 of allowed and th€ Station House Officer, Gadwal, shall prov,de police aid to the Advocate Commissioner for conducting sunrey as clrrected by the trial court in I.,\.No.376 of 2023. There shall be no order as to costs Pending rniscellaneous applications if any shall s tanc I closed. //TRUE COPY// D SDi. A.V.S.PRASAD EPI,.ITY REGISTRAR f,I r"r JSE CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principa' ,Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal 2. One CC to SRI I\,4 DAMODAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to lr/s. IVALIPEDDI RAJA LAXMI, Advocate IOPUC 4. Two CD Copies ADK/DL w HIGH COURT DATED:2010312025 i ) .:lr\ta J( o 10 APfl 20[ ir, F:J ;, '\T 9 , c ,r. , ORDER CRP.No.3057 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS L0