High Court · 2025

4.MettuMahesh,S/o.MettuSudarshan,Ag."d-."nn,.34Years,Occ. Govt.Employee, n:l"' i't'r"J is-idir"'vd'p& Town and trilandal' Medak 5. Mettu Srisailam, S/o. Mettu Sudarshan' Aged about 33 Years' Occ' Govt.Emplovee, Fv" H ii;:iit +-s;ii'jvu'pei To*n and Mandal' Medak District-502101 . District-SO2'101 ' AND ...PETlTlONERs/ Petitioners / Plaintiffs 1 Batthula Mallesh, S/o Late Bhoomaiah' Aged about 43,Years' Occ' i; ffi iffi , il;'. hrniuvup"tiiiin uno i"r'"na't' Medak District-so 2'1 0 1' Batthula Srisailam, S/o' Late Bhoomaiah' Aged about,39 vears' Occ' Aoriculture, Fl/o.Ramavapeir?*?ilii rr'r;nEii' tvt"o'tt Di;trict-so2101' Batthura Ravi, s/o. Lare Bhoomaia:,#E:fl R/o.RamaYaPet Town and I #f#:,._lJi,r6?'. 2 2 o"" Agricurture' ..RESPONDENTS -7 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petitior r nclr:' Section 151 CpC praying that in the: circumstances stated in the affidavit f ile d i r support of the petition, the High oourt mz:y be pleased to dispense with tlre o:rtified copy of the order/decree daterd 2a.ot'2024, passed rn 1.A.N0.185 oF: .r0:r l lN o.S.No.376 oF 2023,ln The cout of rh r principal Junior civil Judge-crr.r- .J rdicial First class lrlagistrate At Medat in the ; bove i.R.p. Counsel for t[re Petitioner: SRl. B. BALAJI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI M. M. ALI The Court made tre following ORDER: I I I I I I I i i I i I I I I I I I I : I i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CIVIL REVISION PETI TION No. 35o9 of2O24 ORDER: This civil revision petition is hled invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the constitution of India, aggrievecl by the order dated 28.O8.2024 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Medak, (for short' 'the trial Court') in I.A.No.185 of 2023 in O.S No'376 of 2023' whereunder the application [rled under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code ol Civil Procedure' 1908 (hereinafter referred Lo, as 'the C P C ) secking appoinLment of thc Advocate Commissioner is dismissed

2. Heard Mr. B. Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioners' and Mr. M.M. A1i, learned counsel for the respondents'

3. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs and they fiied suit in O.S.No.376 of 2023 before the trial Court secking (i) to pass judgment and decree in their lavour directing the defcndants to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac' 1 26 gts situated at Ramayampet Village and Mandal' Medak District; (ii) to appoint Advocate Commissioner for demarcalion of the suit schedule lands of the plaintiffs and defendants with the help of concerned Surveyor and; (iii) to grant a decree for perpetual injunction restraininflttle defendants and their henchmen' wo:Ua:t' servants' ' 2 etc., from r ()1. rlienating, selling or mortgaging tO a tnir.r I party with respect to tl e ,srLit schedule property.

3. 1. In r rr s;ai I suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No. I ,15 ol ll )23 sceking appointmc n ':rl Advocate Commissioner to survc!. tl cr l3 pds and lx the boundar icr; Thc trial Court dismissed the saicl a1rpfic,ttion, by its order da[e,i ,]8. 18.2024.

4. Learnr d ,tounsel lor the petitioners strbntrl.tcc that the petitioners lilec application seeking appointtnen, o Advocate commissicn r .o survey the land and fix the b.,ncLar.ie s and they satisfied thr: intr3drents of Order XXVI Rule 9 of tho C).p.C: If thc said application ts 'ellorved, no prejudice would tr: r:.us.ed to the responden r s

5. Learrrc'1 :lrunsel for the respondents subnt ltec rhat the petitioner-s 1i e,.l :;uit seeking delivery of possession ol th<: land to an extent of .^,: 1 26 gts and also for appointrnerL. o Acivocate Commissio:rr:' rt'rrl perpetual injunction. Thc rL;tplit ation i.e., I.A.No. 185 t1 2l'.3 filed by the petitioners to concjucl su:. e1. and hx the boundari s js not maintainable under law on tte qror.,i::d that the petitioners fi ,:,- ,,1,,1 lor delivery of possession a;., d t he rial Court rightly dismis:;r:c thc application and there are no grou,cls o tnterfere vrith the imlrr q:r,'l rrder. I a

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respectrve parties and after perusal of the material available on record' it reveals that the petitioners filed suit for recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property and they also sought for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the suit land o[ the petitioners and respondents with the help of surveyor' When the suit is pending, the petitioners hled application i e'' I'A'No 185 of 2023 ' for #fr"g appointment ol Arlvocate Commissioner to survey the land and llx the boundaries. The relief sought in the application and the relief sought in the suit for seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner for demarcation of the suit schedule property is one and the same. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court rightly dismissed the application and this Court does not hnd any ground to exercise the supervisory powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India' 7 Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed No costs Miscellaneous aPPlications, pending if any,'shal1 stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. K.AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR sEciloN o(hGn To 1

2. 3. 4. The Principal Junior civil Judge -cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate' at HrEt: n ss:,?: fi llli'AffJ:,:,x'iJ353f Two CD CoPies I {A- I i I I i i I HIGH COURT JSRJ DATED:07/03,/2021i ORDER CRP.No.3509 ol 2(t;14 DISMISSING T I] ( I\'II- RI]VISION PETITION WITHOUT I]OST i A r az I rj -:==-t='.! :ifa r€ Bo 3 tt lltu 1P5 t Dr,il.,/, - {-:.r., (0( z C, l. { L) I )