The High Court · 2025

...Responderr i/Petitioners/plaintiffs lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the ci. umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m: , be pleased To stay all further proceedings in t. A. No. 21O ot 2022 in O.S. No. 2( ot 2015, OB.O}.2022 on the file of the Hon'ble in Prl. Junior civil Judge cum-Judi: ll magistrate of First Class, Asifabad, Pending disposal of this CRp in the interest f justice. Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRl. Mohammed Rahail Ahmed Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI Vedula Chitralekha The Court made the fotlowing: ORDER h THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B:R. MADI{USUDIIAN RAO CfvlL REVISION PEf,ITION No.2287 of 2o22 ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order dated O8.O9.2022 passed in I.A.No.21O of 2022 in O.S.No.26 of 2015 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad.

2. Petitioner herein is petitioner No.3 - plaintiff No.3; respondent Nos.3 to t herein are the other petitioners- plaintiffs; and respondent Nos.l and 2 herein are the respondents in I.A.No.21O of 2022.

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from legal inhrmities and not in accordance with tJre procedure. The Iearned trial Court ought to have seen that appointment of Advocate Commissioner is just and necessary for the Z BRMR,J | ?.P.No.2287 of 2022 fair adjudication of the suit for declaratio I of title arld recovery of possession and failed to r; )e that the respondent No.2-defendant No.2 is claiminr his land on the northern side of the suit property but :. :t willing for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to :oeasure the suit land on technical grounds for collecting :vidence.

3.2 The learned trial Court ought to have ,.een that the petition frled by the petitioner herein i:; neither for recovery of possession nor for deciding t e factum of possession but for identihcation of boundrl ies and the extent of land in illegal possession of del :ndant No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) is in Sy.No.236/4.

3.3 The learned tria_l Court ought to have r :en t]rat tlee factum of illegal possession of Ac. 1.(r, ) cents of petitioner's land is not denied but the pantum of possession of suit schedule land is excer ded. by the respondent No.2-defendant No.2 to an e)i.:nt Ac. 1_60 cents wittrout looking into the boundarier; of the suit o J BRMR,J CRP.No.2287 ot 2022 schedule property. Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied on the decisions in case of i) Haryana Waqf Board v. Shanti Sarup and othersr and ii) Bandarr Mutyalu and another y. palli Appalaraju2.

4. Learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly dismissed the application hled by the petitioner for appointrnent of Advocate Commissioner, no interference is call for. Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied on the decision in the case of Arvind Kumar Agarwal v. [egend Estates (p) Limited, Kokapet village, Ranga Reddy district3.

5. Petitioner herein has sworn the aflidavit in I.A.No.21O of 2022, wherein he stated that respondent No.2 herein has hled his written statement in the suit and claiming that he is in possession of Ac. 1.6O cents out ' (20081 (81 SCC 671 2 2013 16l AL"t 26 3 2015 (21 ALT 484 (S.B_) -+# 4 BRMR,J CRP.No.22A7 ot 2022 of Sy.No.236 /A and he is not in possessio r of suit land. Respondent No.2 has purchased Ac. l.6C cents of land. from defendant No. 1 (Respondent No.l herr in), which she has purchased from his father and the szr on the North of the suit land and pral, Advocate Commissioner assisted by the te: frnd out whether defendant No.2 (responder is in possession of the Ac.2.6O cent! ne is situated 'd to appoint rnical man to t No.2 herein) of land in Sy.No.236/A inclusive of suit schedule lar-r_ admeasuring Ac. 1 .0O cents situated at Jankapur village.

6. Respondents have resisted the said filing counter and the learned trial Court the same which is impugned in the Petition. r pplication by I as dismissed ( ivil Revision

7. Power of the High Court under l. ticle 222 of Constitution of India is supervtsory and ir exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its sr. rervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conti rred by law. a BRMR,J @P.No.2287 of 2022 5 This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985).

8. Petitioner herein is plaintiff No.3 in O.S.No.26 of 2015 and respondent No.4 to t herein are the other plaintiffs. They hled a suit for declaration of tifle and recovery of possession in respect of land to an extent of Ac.1.OO cents in Sy.No.236/A situated at Janakpur shivar of Asifabad Mandal. It is stated in the plaint in para No.7 that originally the suit is filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession of Ac.2-2O cents of land in Sy.No.236 /A. Later on account of compromise the suit was withdrawn against the defendant No.l (respondent No.1 herein) to an extent of Ac. 1.2O cents, which was in i \ 6 BRMR,J RP.N}.2287 of 2022 r ''i, his position and the remaining area of Ac, t.OO cents of land is in illegal possession of de: ndant No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) bounded as East Road leading to Chandrapur, West: land of Sayyed Hzt reem Ansari, North: land of defendant No.2 and South: F, ad leading to Kerameri,

9. Respondent No.2 herein is defendar No.2 in the suit and he filed his written statement cc, rtending tJrat the petitioners are not entitled for recovery : 'possession.

10. In Har5rana Waqf Boardt the Suprer: : Court held that in case of demarcation of the disputer land, it was appropriate for the court to direct the in,estigation by appointing a l.ocal Commissioner under Or ier 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C.

11. In Bandaru Mutyalu2 the High Court rbserved that 'Appointment of Commissioner - In sitrr rtions where there is controversy as to identificatior. location or I I I I I I I I ) t , i i ! I i I i I l ; I I I I i I I t I I i I I ,o 7 BRMR,J CRP -l{o-22a7 ot 2022 measurement of the land, local investigation be got done at an early stage by appointing a Commissioner to enable parties to proceed with trial as per report of Commissioner.' L2. In Arvind Kumar Agarwala the High Court observed that 'the petitioner has given specilic boundaries to his property. Therefore, the initia_t burden lies on him to prove the identity of his propert5r by adducing his own evidence. It is only after both the parties adducing their respective evidence, if aly ambiguity prevails with reference to the identity of the propert5z, that the Court on its own or on the application of either party, may appoint an Advocate Commissioner. In my opinion, in a case of this nature, an application for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner at the threshold itself cannot be entertained as the sarne will amount to gathering evidence.' //i ,I . J 8 BRMR,J RP.No-2287 oI2022

13. It is apt to mention here that the p,: itioner along with other plaintiffs have mentioned in the rlaint in para No.6 that the Mandal Surveyor he conducted demarcation as per the records of revenut: village map, Pahani Patrikas and fixed tJle boundaries ir- the presence of adjacent cultivators and witnesses on 1, 01.2015. As per the demarcation, it is clear that defendi nt Nos.1 and 2 in the suit (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) have occupied the remaining extent of land i.e., l' ,. 1-55 cents. L4. The learned trial Court in its order ob: :rved in para No.S that the appointment of Advocate ( ommissioner with the help of a technical man to measur,: the suit land amounts to nothing, but, adducing evider ce otherwise ttran by leading evidence by the petitionel rvhich is not permissible, particularly in the facts of the 1; 'esent case.

15. I have gone through the decisions :ited by the t""rrLa eounsel for ttre petitioner, I hnd trat they are distinguished from the facts of the present r: rse and thus, V BRMR,J CRP.No.2287 oI2022 9 the ratio of those cases would not apply to the case of

16. The prayer made in the application is for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the t propert5r of the Respondent No.2 i.e., Ac-2-6O cents, which includes the suit scheduled property.

17. As stated supra, the scope of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited'

18. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated the contentions raised by the parties therein and rightly dismissed the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. This Court is of the view that no interference is called for and the petitioner has not made out any case in the Civil Revision Petition. 1rg. In view of the reasons stated above, there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable 10 BRMR,J 1 7P.No.2287 of 2022 I to be dismissed and is accordingly disrnisse: . There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any shall star d vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions shall stand closed. ;D/- B. REKHA RANI ASSI TANT REGISTRAR .2.n ,,o\--, SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, Asifabad.(with records if-any)

1. The Pd. Junior Civil Judge-C.um-Judicial magistrate of t rst Class, ? 9n" CC to SRI Mohammed hahail Ahmed, Advocate [(. ,UC] 3 One CC to SRt.Veduta Chitratekha, nUvocite-iOFUCj 4. Two CD Copies JA/SA .',"-E - I I ) ( ol{ .rE S .) I <.t * \TC HIGH COURT DATED:1111112O25 ORDER CRP.No.2287 of 2022 I I I t i t i i I , t t { I I i I ! I I I i CTVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED 0\2 \q +