The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ifre Hign Court may be pleased to stay of all fr.rrther proceedings in O.S. No. 9 of 2017, on the file oi Honble Junior Civil Judge''Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Korufla, Jagtial District, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. K VENUMADHAV counsel for the Respondents: K VENKATESHWARA PRASAD The Court nrade the following: OhDeR THE HON'ELE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CRP.NO.2258 ()F 2022 EEEEA

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order passed in I.A.No.3OZ of 2O2L in OS No.9 of 2OL7 by the learned Junior Civil Judge -Cum- Judicial Magistrate of First'Class, Korutla, Jagtial District in dismissing the application filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner vide order dated O4.O7.2022.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the suit vtde OS.No.9 of 2Ot7.

3.1. Petitioner has filed I.A.No.302 of 2O2L under Order 26 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to fix the boundaries of suit Survey No.79B with the help of Mandal Surveyor or any other Superior Officer.

3.2. It is stated in the affidavit in IA.No.302 0t 2021 that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the open land admeasuring Ac.0O-09 guntas in Survey No.798/e9, situated at Korutla Shivaru and within the timits of Korutla Revenue Mandal, Jagtial District and the respondents-defendants without having right, title or possession over the suit schedule land, interfered in his possession, 218 BRMRJ cRP_225a2022 which compelled him to file a suit for perpetual injunction. The respondernts-defendants alleged to have the respective lanis in Survey No.752 vrhich is adjacent to the suit survey number i,e., 798 and they have also filed the respective suits .in .respect of the alleged lands in the above said survey number vide OS Nos.123 of 2OL5, L24 of ZOLS, 125 of 2015 and 126 of 2015 before the same Court which is pending consideration. The land of the petitioner and the lands of the respondents-defendantr are pertaining to. d+ffierent survey numbers and both survey numbers are adjacent to each other.. As such in view of both :;ide suits and to come to a conclusion of both the conflicts placed ir-r the suits, it is necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissroner to fix the boundaries of the suit survey number.

4. Respondents-defendants have filed their counter and contended that they filed suits against the petitioner prior to filing the suit by him before thr: same Court vide QS Nos.123, L24, LZS and 126 of 2015 in respect o'agriculture land to an extent of 9 yz guntas each in Survey No.752laJ) situated at Korutla Shivaru and Mandal and the same are pending. The suit filed by the petitioner is for perpetual injection in respect ol' land to an extent of Ac.00-9 guntas in Survey No.798le9, the burde.l lies on him to prove and establish his possession in respect of his property and the appointment of Advocate Commissioner leads to collectk)n of evidence and prayed to dismiss the same. BRMR,J cRP22sa_N22

5. The learned trial Court after considering the pleadings of the pafties, has dismissed IA.No.302 of 2OZl vide order dated O4.O7.2022 which is impugned in the CRP.

6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.00-09 Guntas in Survey No.798/eo, the respondents without there being any right or title over the petitioner's land started illegal interference which led to filing the suit in OS No.9 of 2OL7. The respondents-defendants alleged to have their respective lands in Survey No.752 which is adjacent to the land of the petitioner in Survey No.798/es. Therefore, IA No.302 of 2O2L is filed under Order 26 Rule 9 rlw Section 151 of CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for measuring the suit schedule property with the help s6 Mandal Surveyor.

6.2. The learned tria! Court without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner and without looking into the legal position that for quietus of the Iitigation between the petitioner and the respondents- defendants instead .of appointing an Advocate Commissioner for measuring the suit schedule property and simply stated that in an injunction suit, burden lles on the petitioner to prove his possession and enjoyment and the same has to be established by way of oral and documentary evidence, not by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The Court below failed to look into the grievance of the petitioner in e4 418 BRMR,J cRP22582022 proper perspective and erroneously dismissed the application and also failed to exercise its powerc. l

6.3. Ttre Court below ought to have seen that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents in appointing an Advocate Gommissioner for measuring and recording the physical features of the suit schedule property. In support of his contention has relied on the decision in the case of M/s. Va Innova Altoy Steel Tech Private Limited Vs. Avinash Dagal, ;rnd prayed to allow the CRP by setting aside the impugned order.

7. Lerarned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for appointrnent of Advocatr: Commissioner, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the CRP.

8. Ht:ard learned counsel, perused the material.

9. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the order passed by the learr,ed trial Court in IA No.302 of 2O2L in OS.No.9 of 2OL7 dated

04.07.2022 suffers from any perversity or. illegality? If so, does it requires interference of this Court or not? '-----* -i ' 2o2o LawSuit (TS) 594 i) BRMRJ cRP_225a-N22

10. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their Jurisdiction conferred by law. 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).

11.1. It is stated in the plalnt ln Para No.5 that the respondents- defendants are strangers to the suit schedule prcrpefty and they coveted eye over the same and several times demanded the petitioner-plaintiff to sell the suit schedule property to them at a cheaper rate. But the petitioner-plaintlff refused their proposal and they are seriously trying to interfere into his possession.

11.2. It is further stated in Para No.6 of the plaint that the respondents-defendants wlth the ald and help of unsocial elements and their strong supporters in the village wlthout having right or interest over the plaint schedule property has commenced illegal and unauthorised interference on 20.01.2017.

11.3. The defense set up by the respondents-d€fendants in the written statement is that they are the exclusive owners and possessors of agriculture land to an extent of 9 Vz Guntas each in Survey No.752 I t i :r !i 618 BRMRJ cRP-25a:2o/22 (752l?rD) situated at Koru,a Shivar and Mandal, Ja.gtial District, Telangana state and they have purchased the same from the earrier owners under registered sale deeds and they have filed the suits against !:he petitioner-praintiff at first in point of time in respect of their agricultrrral land in Survey No.7S2lD) for perpetual injunction yrue OS.Nos. 123, tZ4, 125 and 126 of 2015 and there is an injunction order in their favour which is served on the petitioner_plaintiff in OS.No.1i26 of 2015 in respect of the above said suits. The pefltioner_ plaintlff having suppressed the said facts and ftled OS.No,9 of 2OL7 with false allegations. L2. Thr: su;1 schedule property in OS.No.9 of 2OLZ is open land to an extent of Ac.00-O9 Guntas in Survey No.79gle with boundaries as East: Land of Machakameshwara Murthi, West: Land. of Venkakeddy Gangadhe,r and others, North: Land of 30 feet road, South: Land of Kandla Ga ngaram and others. 13' on reading the affidavit fired by the petitioner in IA.N..302 0f 202L, it ir; mentioned in para No.4 that the respondents are having lands in Survey No.752 which is adjacent to the suit survey number i.e., 798. It is not the case of the petitioner_plaintiff in the plaint.that the r€spondent,s land is adjacent to the suit survey number and for the first time, it is brought in the affidavit contending that the suit survey number arrd the survey number of the respondents_defendants are T8 BRMR,J c8jP_22sA_2022 adjacent to each other and to put a quietus, Advocate commissioner be appointed to fix the boundaries of the suit survey nrrb* with the help of Mandal Surveyor L4.L. In M/s. VA Innova Alloy Steel Tech pvt. l.td.,r it is observed by the High court that when there is a specific dispute with regard to the boundaries and one party is trying to encroach upon the other party,s land, the court can appoint an Advocate commiss_ioner in order to put a quietus to the litigation. L4.2. In the above said decision the petitioner,s,propgrty therein is in suit survey No.352/A1 whereas the rands of the respondent therein is in survey number 3sz/Az and it is the contention of the respondent in the above said decision that the revision' petitioner is trying to construct a compound wail on their rand. The facts in the above decision are compretely different with the case on hand in view of the fact that the rands of the respondents are not shown in any of the boundaries in the schedule property.

15. The learned triar court has righfly held in its order that there is no pleading in the plaint that the lands of the respondents are situated in survey No.752 and the same is adjacent to the suit schedure property.

16. The praint onry states that the respondents-defendants tried to interfere over the petitioner's possession, thereby, the suit came to be \ \ i I I I I I I I I I i i BRMR,J cw:225a:2o22 filed ag,ainst them for perpetual injunction. The scope of Article 227 is limited and the learned trial Couft has properly exercised its jurisdiction in dismissing the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner by assigning cogent reasons. t7 , This Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out iih| cas,3 to set aside the impugned order and the order passed by the learned trial Court is with good reasons, hence, I'm not inclined to interfere with the same.

18. In the result, CRP is dismissed without costs. Interim Orders if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s shall stand closed. SD/€.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECT'ON OFFICER To,

1. The Jurior civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First class, Korufla, Jagtial District

2. One CC to SRl. K VENUMADHAV Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRl. K VENKATESHWARA PRASAD Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies PK,/PSL HIGH COURT I I DATED i:0411112025 DIFI'IIESED ) CRP.N o.2258 ot 2022