The High Court · 2025

4. lapati Kalyam Qfaran, S/o. Late Alapati Raghavaiah, Aged about 49 years, 5. Alapati Srikanth, S/o. Late Alapati Raghavaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ. lT Consultant, Rl/o. H.No. 2, fela Homes, HDFe Bank Lan6, Miyapuram Rangareddy District AND ...Petitioners / Plaintiffs Smt. Sadiya Begum, Wo. Abdul Razak, Aged about 36 years, Occ. House Hold, Rl/o- H.No.5-9-83, Rajeevgandhi Nagar Lane - 1 , Kukatpally, Rangareddy District. ...RespondenUDefendant lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 O.S.No.40 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble Principle Senior Civil Judge at Sangareddy pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri N. Bhujanga Rao representing Ms.G. Jhansi Counsel for the Respondent: Sri K. Ravinder Reddy, Senior Counsel representing Ms. G. Dhamini The Court made the following: ORDER I TIIE HONOT]RABLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.4055 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners - plaintiffs aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.1l45 of 2024 in O.S.No.4O of 2014 by the leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

2. Heard Sri N.Bhujanga Rao representing Ms.G.Jhansi, leamed counsel for the petitioners - plaintiffs on record and Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, leamed Senior Counsel representing Ms.G.Dhamini, leamed counsel for the respondent - defendant on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners - plaintiffs submitted that the petitioners were the absolute owners of plot Nos.140, l4l, 147/1 and 148 admeasuring 500 square yards in Survey No.522 of Muthangi Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District having purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing document No.2566 of 2006 dated 3 1.01 .2006 from their vendor Sri Naga Satyanarayana. The respondent Smt.Sadiya Begum illegally encroached upon the suit schedule property, a part of plot No.140 admeasuring 100 square yards (suit schedule property) and constructed a 2 Dr. GRR, J crp_,l055_2024 componnd wall arld built a room despite a status quo order granted in O.S.No.273 of 2012 filed by the petitioners. The respondent was the owner of plot No.139 situate,J adjacent to the west side of the suit schedule propcrty. She alleged that she Jrurchased the same from one Jaya Laxmi, who in turn purchased it from the original vendor Sri Boddu Ravi Shankar. The respondent was claiming ownership over the encroached portion of 100 square yards ofthe petitioners' plot No.140. The petitioners earlier filed O.S.No.273 of 2072 seeking permanent injunction against the respondent and others. Despite the interim orders granted in favor of the petitioners, the respondent demolished the room constructed bl the petitioners and un-lawfully raised a compound wall encroaching upon the suit schedule property. Subsequently, the petitioners filed the present suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the encroached portion of plot No.l40 admeasuring 100 square yards from the respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an interlocutory application seeking to re-open their evidence and to appoint an Advocate Cornmissioner. The appointment of Advocate Commissioner was crucial to asceftain the encroachment committed by the respondent and to establish the exact location and extent ofthe encroached portion. However, the trial court without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances ofthe case, dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioners and prayed to set aside the order dated

21.11.2014 in I.A Nio.1l45 of 2022i rn*O.S.No.40 of 2014. 4' Dr. cR& J crP_4055 _2024 Leamed Senior counsel for the respondent - defendant on the other hand submitted that the suit was pertaining to thc year 2014, which was more than 10 years old and the petition was filed by the revision petitioners at the belated stage of the case at the stage of arguments. No copy of layout was fired by the petitioners. It was not possible to demarcate and identifi, the plots in the absence of the layout. The law could not support appointing an Advocate Commissioner for gathering the evidence. No petition was filed by the petitioners seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner also, which would disclose that the petition filed by them for re-opening of their evidence was without any bonafides and prayed to dismiss the revision petition.

5. considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that earlier also they fited a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents and inspite of the status quo order granted the respondent encroached upon the suit schedule properry and that the petitioners had filed the present suit seeking the substantive relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the alleged encroached portion of 100 square yards of plot No. 140 and the appointment of an Advocate commissioner is crucial to ascertain the exact location, extent and boundaries of the suit schedule property and the rong pendency ofthe suit could not be a ground to deny the parties an opportunity to adduce crucial evidence or to obtain assistance from an Advocate commissioner if required and substantial justice could not be sacrificed for , I I , I :.} 4 Dr. GR& J crp 4055_2O24 procedural expediency and the appointment of an Advocate commissioner would help the Crturt for an impartial assessment of the factual issues, it is considered fit to allow the revision petition by setting aside the order dated

21.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.1145 of 2024 in o.S.No.40 of 2014 by the leamed Principal Senior CiYil Judge, Sangareddy. However, as I'A No'1145 of 2024 is filed by the petitioncrs plaintiffs to re-open the evidence of the plaintifls without filing an apptication for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, the petitioners are directed to file an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner within a period of seven (07) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without causing further delay.

6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the above direction. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this pctition, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// srl/- N. GHANDRA SEKHAR - ASSISTNIIT REGISTRAR \l SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Principal :senior Civil Judge at Sangareddy i. onl cc to Ms.G. Jhansi, Advocac tqlu-gl. e. o;; CC to [r,4s;. G. Dhamini, Advocate [oPUc] 4. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:31 10112025 51 ATt: o -) t) .1', ;, 1\ i \iE o t /n' ORDER CRP.No.4055 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION