The High Court · 2025

5. Katroth Srinu, Sqn, fge_d about 47 Year, R/o. Gumadavelli Thanda, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Bgspo!4qnt No.1 name is mentioned as per Note of Court order dated 17.11.2025, passed in CRP No.2743 of 2022. ...Respondent No.1 to 5 lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 the pronouncement of judgment in AS.No.262 of 2013 on the file of Vlll Additional District Judge, R.R. District at LB Nagar pending disposal of the cRp. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.Rathan Singh Counsel for the Respondents : Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy The Court made the following : ORDER :e-,. t,) 2 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PE"IITION No. 2743 of 2O22 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order in I.A.No -521 of 2022 in A.S.No.262 of 2O13, dated 07.71.2022 passed by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.

2. Before discussing further, it is appropriate to note that petitioners have shown the sole respondent (Katroth Hasli) as respondent in the I.A. Whereas in the cause title of the order dated

07.11.2022, shows the names of one Katroth Somla died per legal representatives as respondent Nos.2 to 5. The same cause title is reflected in the Civil Revision Petition.

3. Appellate Court would have been more diligent in preparing the cause title of the parties while issuing certified copies of the orders. Katroth Hasli is herein after referred to as respondent, since cause title mentioned therein in the order dated 07.LL-2022 and in the Civil Revision Petition is pertaining to A.S.No.265 of 2013 but not A.S.No.262 of 2013.

4. Petitioners are the appellants and sole respondent is the respondent in I.A.No.52l of 2022 in A.S.No.262 of 2013, which is \\ \\ J filed under Section 151 of cPC to reopen the appeal to appoint Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property rvhich came to be dismissed.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pw-1 admitted that revision petitioners'land is situated in suit schedule property as narrated in o.S.No.93 of 2005 and if the admission of Pw-1 is read in conjunction with the revision petitioners'defense, who right from the filing of written statement have taken a stand that revision petitioners' land is included in the suit schedule property and that the respondent-plaintiff filed suit by showing wrong boundaries despite the trial court discarding such admissions, decreed the suit, thus, the revision petitioners have file.d appeal seeking appellate court's indulgence to appoint Advocate commissioner to note down the suit schedule property and its boundaries since the same will and shall enable the appellate Court to decide the appeal on its propensity.

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that appointment of Advocate commissioner warrants as there is a serious boundary disputes, such exercise can be done so only by the Advocate commissioner. If Advocate commissioner is not appointed by the appellate court, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss. on the / I ,i'r 4 other hand real facts wiit not see the light of the day. Counsel relied on the decisions in the cases of Haryana Waqf Board v. Shanti Sarup & Ors.I and K.S.Palanisamy v. Ramasamy2 and prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent (Katroth Hasli) submits that the learned appellate Court has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and the application came to be filed when the main appeal was reserved for judgment, learned appellate Court has assigned cogent reasons in disposing the application, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition'

7. 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). I Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.orqidocl675295 2 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.orgldoc/94068326 5

8. Petitioners are defendant Nos.l to 3 and respondent (Katroth Hasli) is the plaintiff in o.S.No.93 of 200s. Katroth Hasli has filed suit for perpetual injunction reslraining the defendants (petitioners herein) from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property i.e., agricultural land bearing Sy.No.683/ 13 admeasuring Ac.2-o0 guntas, situated at Gummadavelli village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, bounded by North: land of Somla, south: Road, East: land of defendants (petitioners herein) and west: Gummadavelli Thanda.

9. Petitioners, who are the defendants have filed their written statement and contended that defendant Nos.l and 2 (petitioner Nos.l and 2 herein) and their younger brother pathya got land admeasuring Ac.5-00 guntas in Sy.No.6B3 in which, the suit schedule land is included and the defendant No.1 and 2 in the suit and their younger brother namely sabavath pathya are in continuous and peaceful possession to the said extent of Ac.5-00 guntas land in Sy.No.683.

10. Katroth Hasli is examined as pw-l and also examined two independent witnesses as pw-2, pw-3 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A14. oru,behalf of the petitioners herein, DW-l to DW-6 were examined and got marked Exhibits 81 to 836. The learned trial ,7;<:. 6 court after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties has decreed the suit on 21.08.2013, granting perpetual injunction in favour of Katroth Hasli.

11. Petitioners herein have challenged the judgment and decree in o.S.No.93 0f 2005 dated 21.o8.2013 uide A.S'No.262 0f 2013 pending on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. one of the grounds in the appeal is that the appellants (petitioners herein) have invested huge amounts for developing the suit land and cultivating the land during the rainy Season only, since there is no Source of irrigation and the learned trial Court has failed to consider the documents in proper perspective. L2. Petitioners have filed I.A.No.52l of 2022 before the appellate court contending that right from the beginning of their defense before the Court below and even in the appeal that respondent- plaintiff was showing different boundaries by claiming their part of the property, though, they also placed Exhibits B33 and B35' Apart from that, they also placed Ex.B3 to P,22. During the course of examination, DW- 1 inadvertently deposed that office of MRO of Maheshwar€un was not in existence by date of issuance of Ex'833 and. sought indulgence of appellate court to appoint Advocate \ \ \ 7 Commissioner to note down physical features of the suit schedule property.

13. Sole respondent (Katroth Hasli) has liled her counter mentioning' I.A.No.521 of 2022 in A.S.No.265 of 2ot3. The appellate court instead of returning the counter, has taken on record in I.A.No.522 of 2022 in A.S.No .265 of 2or3, wherein she is not a party. Learned appellate court should have been more diligent in taking up the counters while disposing of the applications. The counter filed by Katroth Hasli is that the petitioners have not made out any case for appointment of Advocate commissioner. Moreover, the appointment of Advocate commissioner is for collection of evidence, appeal is of the year

20.13 and they have not made out any ground to reopen the appeal.

14. Learned appellate court has dismissed the application, which is impugned in the present civil Revision petition.

15. In Haryana waqf Board (supra 1), the Honble Supreme Court held that: " The appellate court found that the trial Court d.id. not take into consideration the pleadings of the parties when there was no spectftc denial oi tni part of the r respondents regarding the allegations of uiautho*ea possession in respect of the suit land bg them as per I 8 paragraph 3 of tfu ptaint. But the only controuersy betyteei the parties u/os regarding demarcation of the suit land. because land of the respondents was adjacent to the suit land and" the application for demarcation filed before tlrc trial court was wrongly rejected. It is also not in dispute tlwt euen before the appellate Court, the appellant-Board. had" filed an application fo' ippointment of a Local Commissioner for demarcation of tlte suit land. In our uieut, this aspect of the matter was not at all gone into by tlrc High court while dismissing th.e second appeal summarily. The High Court ought to hnue consid.ered wtrcther in uiew of the nature of dispute and in the facts of the present case, .whether th.e Local commissioner should be appointed for the purpose of d"emarcation in respect of the suit land"'

16. In K.S.Palanisamy (supra 21, the High Court of Judicature at Madras observed that application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner at appeal stage is maintainable' L7. Sole respondent (Smt.Katroth Hasli) is claiming that she is the owner of Ac.2-0O guntas of land in Sy.No.683l13' The eastern side boundary is of the petitioners. Learned trial court while allowing the suit filed by the sole respondent observed in paragraph No.12 about Ex.B33 i.e., certified copy of the patta certificate issued by office of Tahsildar, Maheshwaram, No.D/72661tg65, showing that the patta was assigned to Jorya, S/o Hemja of Gummadavelly village on 28.O3.1965 for an extent of Ac.S-OO gUntas of dry land in Sy.No.683 and no boundaries are mentioned therein. Dw- t has admitted that the office of Tahsildar, Maheshwaraln was created around the year L979 and it shows \\ ) 9 h{,: that the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram was not in existence by the date of issuance of Ex.B33 in 1965.

18. Learned trial court further observed in paragraph No.l6 that there are no subdivision numbers for Ex.B10 to 816. In so far Ex.B23 to 828 are concerned, learned trial court observed that defendant No.l, 2 and pathya each are having Ac.1-27 gutans in Sy.No.682.

19. The documents filed by the petitioners were elaboratively discussed by learned trial court and held that sole respondent is entitled for perpetual injunction.

20. on perusal of the order passed by learned appellate court in ,h: impugned I.A, which goes to show that the petitioners- appellants have dragged on the matter for nine (09) years and when the matter was posted for arguments conditionally, then they submitted their.q.rguments and thereafter the appeal was posted for judgment. At that stage, petitioners came up with the application to reopen the appeal to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. 2L. Learned appellate court has discussed the matter minutely in its oider by going through the judgment passed by the learned trial court, with that of Ex.B3 to E,22, B33 and B35 and ryhtly *, i :* I , I I 10 arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners have not made out any case to re-open the aPPeal.

22. In so far, the decision citied by the petitioners'collnsel, this court after going through the same, find that they are distingUished from the facts of the present case and thus, the ratio of those cases would not apply in the present case' 2g. Petitioners have not made out any case to interfere with the order of the learned. appellate Court in I.A.No.52l of 2022 dated

07.Lt.2O22. There are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

24. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any stand vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s shall stand closed. sd/- s. ASSISTANT /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER cI To,

1. The Vlll 2. One CC 3. One CC 4. Two CD Copies Svs/PR N. HIGH COURT DATED i1711112025 / ORDER CRP.No.2743 of 2022 DISMISSING THE CRP ( €