The High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
...Petitioners/Petitioners/Respondents/Defendant No.1 to5 AND Snramoji Premala, Wo Sathyanarayana Aged about 52 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No. 10-388iA, Main Road, Yellareddypet Village and Mandal, Ra.ianna Sircilla District. .Res pondenURespondenUPetitioners/Plai 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 stay all further proceedings in OS No. 42O ol 2023 pending on 13 file of Principal Junior Civil Judge - Cum - Judicial Magiskate of First Clasr; at Rajanna Sircilla pending disposal of the CRP Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.ARJUN RAO Counsel for the Respondent: SMT B.SHIRISHA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISI ONP ETITION No.3431 oF 2025 ORDER 'lhis Civil Rr:visiot-t l)( titiolr has llcett l'ilccl ch:rllcnging tl'rt: order datt:cl 30.07.2025 1r:rsscrl in I A No' 3.l7 of 2O25 in I A' No. 816 of 2023 irr O S No 't20 ol' 2023' on thc llle o[ thc lc:rrned Principal 'Junror (lrvil 'luclqt: cum 'JLtdicial M:rgistratc ol Irirst Clirss, Rajan tlit Sircrllrl' ts. AliLLrr Rao. Icarllt'cl coutlscl for thc Slr-tt. ll. Slririslrir, Icartlc:<1 cotttlst:l for the
2. Hea rcl Mr pctitioncrs, and lcspondct-t t. :l.Thcrcr,isitltlpCtlrl()ll(]fS.lr'hllztretht'clelcrld:rn[sbc[orc tfrc lrial Court, hlccl a petitioll r:rr<lcr C)rclr'r XXVI Rutc 9 of the Code o[ Civil Proccdure, lc)O8 (CPC) secking appoLntment o[ an Advocate Commissioner 1o <lcmarr::ttc the sttit scher'lule property and hx its bouudaries' Learned counsel for [he petiLiorler-s sublnits that the 4. appointment ol an Advocate Commissioncr to conduct a local inspection and demarcatc the property rvould assist the Court in rcsolving thc disputc clleclivclv ancl in cletermining the " 2 - precise boundaries of the suit schedule lanc1. Hi'r rnternds 1,ha[ thc ob-ject ol appoin ling a Cornmissiirner rs i I ,1 [o collect evidence on bchalf of either party but to etrirblt lrc Court to propcrlv apprc'ciate tl'rc physica I fezrtLll t s a tlt I ( <rerrr ol- the propcrty in conLroversy. Honever, thc triarl C ,rrt, \\ ith()Lrt appreciating Lhe neccssity of such demarcation r r';mrsscd thc petition on the ground that it was hled aL il r latcd s [i1ge, holding thirt no valid reasons 14,619 1126[9 , r r lir- strcl't appoin tment.
5. Per corrtr:r, lezrrned counsel lor thc resir,l t l -:nt / plain tilT submits thal (he trial Court has rightly excrcist t ts cliscre Lion in re-jecting the application, observing Lhat apir I rl tlTrent ()f it Commissioncr at this stage would prejudice tlrr r c slror t dc't t t 's interests and delay the progress of Lhe trial. t is furthcr con tended that the defendants may renc\'v such r t rcclr-Lcs t rtlier leading evidence, if necessary, and therefore nc i t erl'crcnce is u.arranted at this interlocutory stage.
6. I have pcrused the material available ()r record and considered thc rival submissions advanced br' roth learned counsel. 3 It is not in disPr-ttc that
7. pet r tioners / defendants lilerl thc prescnt appointmenl oI an Advoc:tlc ( ()ltrnlissioner at lr:rming of issues, seekir-rg dctltlttr:iLtiotl ol the revision application for the stagc of suit schcdule l)ropcrt\ and fixation of brlunclaritls' 8 The trial Court, bt' thc impt:gllccl order, cleclinccl the saicl t h(' .lLldgmcllt ol rhis Ct-rr-tr-t Ltr rc(lucst, primarill' relying ullotl D arnmalapati Satg onaraY otttt u. l)tttlct Vertkc.t.cl Ratnabhaclrct lthcrt'itt it uas held thiit the Rrgu, 20O3 (4) ALD 675. :rppointment of a Commissi<;nt't is noL intcnded lo collcct cviclcnce for either party, and that thc same should be permitreci only where it is essentiill to assist the Court in resolvitrg ambiguitv regarding the propern irr clispule. The trial Court also placed reliarlce on the rccent () l)ronounccment of the llon'blc Supreme Court in Bocllqa lnxmaiah u. Ilauoni Chiruta Janganh' 2024 SCC Online SC 3236, s'hcre it was reitcratccl that thc pt.ru cr under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is discretionary, and tl'rat a Commissioner should not be appointed as a mzrttcr of routine, particularly when tl-tc cvid.ence of the parties is yet to be concluded or wherc such appointmcnt may prejudicc onc of the parties The Supremc 4 Court emphasized that such a request, i considcrcd prclnatlrrely, could amount tO dclegating to th€ ( r,mlllissi()ner tht: .jitclir:ial function ol detcrrnirring posscssion r i o,,r nt.rslriP. n,hich is imltermissible in law.
10. In the present case, as riglttly obscrved b-r' tl : trl:l (lrr-rrt, thc pctition sceking appoinLmcnt of an Advocate. I : mrlissioner $'as lllecl at u premature stagc, i.e., before cornl Ir:IiOn ol tltc c\ii(lr'r.lc( At such a Juncturc, rhe trial Court r jusrilieri in holding that the dcrnarc:rtiorr cxcrcise coulcl nfllrcncc or prc.judict: Lhe course of trial. I l. H:rving regard to the settled legal position zrn, the stagc <;f thc procceclinqs, this Court is o[ the view that rc infirmit-r or irrcgularity carn be fcrund in the order of tt. triirl (_'otrrl \('.rrr.tn[ing interference under rcvisional jurisdictit I . l'2. Hor"r,ever. 1t is madc clear that the petitioner-:, rrc :tt libr_:rtv to fllc a lresh application before thc trial Court, af r r conclusion of thc cvidencc, if such demarcaLion or Iocal inspe: ion is lolrncl nccessary for effective acljudication of the rlispute. 13- [n vieu,of the above discussion, the Civil Rc., sion Petition is clismissed, resening liberty to the petitioners t: :ene\\, tllcir r(:cllrcst lbr lrppointment o[ an Advocatc Comm s. oncr- ut -{tc- 5 approprratc stagc before the trial Court. 'I'here shall be no order AS tO COS[S Miscellancous petitions, if any, pending in the Petition, sha ll sLand closcd SD/. U.SUDHA SISTANTREGIST RA //TRUE COPY/I SECTION OFFICER To, The princlpar Junior civil Judge-cum-J udicial Magistrate of Fust class at Raianna Sircilla' One CC to SRI B ARJUN RAO Advocate IOPUC] One CC to Smt SHIRISHA' Advocate tOPUCI Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4 NVB/PSI- Yt- HIGH COURT DATED:1 811112025 ORDER CRP.No.3431 of 2025 ,.t4: '"/. L. ,.)' o o 1:. ,.) .'. (, \*. \\ ::.:=..-- ; 'iHE slr .i.. ,.\L7.''\. ,l , ,1 ?_ I '.f lrpa-6r * DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISlON PETI"ION G 4l't>
...Petitioners/Petitioners/Respondents/Defendant No.1 to5 AND Snramoji Premala, Wo Sathyanarayana Aged about 52 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No. 10-388iA, Main Road, Yellareddypet Village and Mandal, Ra.ianna Sircilla District. .Res pondenURespondenUPetitioners/Plai 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 stay all further proceedings in OS No. 42O ol 2023 pending on 13 file of Principal Junior Civil Judge - Cum - Judicial Magiskate of First Clasr; at Rajanna Sircilla pending disposal of the CRP Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.ARJUN RAO Counsel for the Respondent: SMT B.SHIRISHA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISI ONP ETITION No.3431 oF 2025 ORDER 'lhis Civil Rr:visiot-t l)( titiolr has llcett l'ilccl ch:rllcnging tl'rt: order datt:cl 30.07.2025 1r:rsscrl in I A No' 3.l7 of 2O25 in I A' No. 816 of 2023 irr O S No 't20 ol' 2023' on thc llle o[ thc lc:rrned Principal 'Junror (lrvil 'luclqt: cum 'JLtdicial M:rgistratc ol Irirst Clirss, Rajan tlit Sircrllrl' ts. AliLLrr Rao. Icarllt'cl coutlscl for thc Slr-tt. ll. Slririslrir, Icartlc:<1 cotttlst:l for the
2. Hea rcl Mr pctitioncrs, and lcspondct-t t. :l.Thcrcr,isitltlpCtlrl()ll(]fS.lr'hllztretht'clelcrld:rn[sbc[orc tfrc lrial Court, hlccl a petitioll r:rr<lcr C)rclr'r XXVI Rutc 9 of the Code o[ Civil Proccdure, lc)O8 (CPC) secking appoLntment o[ an Advocate Commissioner 1o <lcmarr::ttc the sttit scher'lule property and hx its bouudaries' Learned counsel for [he petiLiorler-s sublnits that the 4. appointment ol an Advocate Commissioncr to conduct a local inspection and demarcatc the property rvould assist the Court in rcsolving thc disputc clleclivclv ancl in cletermining the " 2 - precise boundaries of the suit schedule lanc1. Hi'r rnternds 1,ha[ thc ob-ject ol appoin ling a Cornmissiirner rs i I ,1 [o collect evidence on bchalf of either party but to etrirblt lrc Court to propcrlv apprc'ciate tl'rc physica I fezrtLll t s a tlt I ( <rerrr ol- the propcrty in conLroversy. Honever, thc triarl C ,rrt, \\ ith()Lrt appreciating Lhe neccssity of such demarcation r r';mrsscd thc petition on the ground that it was hled aL il r latcd s [i1ge, holding thirt no valid reasons 14,619 1126[9 , r r lir- strcl't appoin tment.
5. Per corrtr:r, lezrrned counsel lor thc resir,l t l -:nt / plain tilT submits thal (he trial Court has rightly excrcist t ts cliscre Lion in re-jecting the application, observing Lhat apir I rl tlTrent ()f it Commissioncr at this stage would prejudice tlrr r c slror t dc't t t 's interests and delay the progress of Lhe trial. t is furthcr con tended that the defendants may renc\'v such r t rcclr-Lcs t rtlier leading evidence, if necessary, and therefore nc i t erl'crcnce is u.arranted at this interlocutory stage.
6. I have pcrused the material available ()r record and considered thc rival submissions advanced br' roth learned counsel. 3 It is not in disPr-ttc that
7. pet r tioners / defendants lilerl thc prescnt appointmenl oI an Advoc:tlc ( ()ltrnlissioner at lr:rming of issues, seekir-rg dctltlttr:iLtiotl ol the revision application for the stagc of suit schcdule l)ropcrt\ and fixation of brlunclaritls' 8 The trial Court, bt' thc impt:gllccl order, cleclinccl the saicl t h(' .lLldgmcllt ol rhis Ct-rr-tr-t Ltr rc(lucst, primarill' relying ullotl D arnmalapati Satg onaraY otttt u. l)tttlct Vertkc.t.cl Ratnabhaclrct lthcrt'itt it uas held thiit the Rrgu, 20O3 (4) ALD 675. :rppointment of a Commissi<;nt't is noL intcnded lo collcct cviclcnce for either party, and that thc same should be permitreci only where it is essentiill to assist the Court in resolvitrg ambiguitv regarding the propern irr clispule. The trial Court also placed reliarlce on the rccent () l)ronounccment of the llon'blc Supreme Court in Bocllqa lnxmaiah u. Ilauoni Chiruta Janganh' 2024 SCC Online SC 3236, s'hcre it was reitcratccl that thc pt.ru cr under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is discretionary, and tl'rat a Commissioner should not be appointed as a mzrttcr of routine, particularly when tl-tc cvid.ence of the parties is yet to be concluded or wherc such appointmcnt may prejudicc onc of the parties The Supremc 4 Court emphasized that such a request, i considcrcd prclnatlrrely, could amount tO dclegating to th€ ( r,mlllissi()ner tht: .jitclir:ial function ol detcrrnirring posscssion r i o,,r nt.rslriP. n,hich is imltermissible in law.
10. In the present case, as riglttly obscrved b-r' tl : trl:l (lrr-rrt, thc pctition sceking appoinLmcnt of an Advocate. I : mrlissioner $'as lllecl at u premature stagc, i.e., before cornl Ir:IiOn ol tltc c\ii(lr'r.lc( At such a Juncturc, rhe trial Court r jusrilieri in holding that the dcrnarc:rtiorr cxcrcise coulcl nfllrcncc or prc.judict: Lhe course of trial. I l. H:rving regard to the settled legal position zrn, the stagc <;f thc procceclinqs, this Court is o[ the view that rc infirmit-r or irrcgularity carn be fcrund in the order of tt. triirl (_'otrrl \('.rrr.tn[ing interference under rcvisional jurisdictit I . l'2. Hor"r,ever. 1t is madc clear that the petitioner-:, rrc :tt libr_:rtv to fllc a lresh application before thc trial Court, af r r conclusion of thc cvidencc, if such demarcaLion or Iocal inspe: ion is lolrncl nccessary for effective acljudication of the rlispute. 13- [n vieu,of the above discussion, the Civil Rc., sion Petition is clismissed, resening liberty to the petitioners t: :ene\\, tllcir r(:cllrcst lbr lrppointment o[ an Advocatc Comm s. oncr- ut -{tc- 5 approprratc stagc before the trial Court. 'I'here shall be no order AS tO COS[S Miscellancous petitions, if any, pending in the Petition, sha ll sLand closcd SD/. U.SUDHA SISTANTREGIST RA //TRUE COPY/I SECTION OFFICER To, The princlpar Junior civil Judge-cum-J udicial Magistrate of Fust class at Raianna Sircilla' One CC to SRI B ARJUN RAO Advocate IOPUC] One CC to Smt SHIRISHA' Advocate tOPUCI Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4 NVB/PSI- Yt- HIGH COURT DATED:1 811112025 ORDER CRP.No.3431 of 2025 ,.t4: '"/. L. ,.)' o o 1:. ,.) .'. (, \*. \\ ::.:=..-- ; 'iHE slr .i.. ,.\L7.''\. ,l , ,1 ?_ I '.f lrpa-6r * DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISlON PETI"ION G 4l't>