ORDER :

Plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 13.06.2022 in I.A.No.32 of 2022 in O.S.No.415 of 2019 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

2. Plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.415 of 2019 seeking perpetual injunction.

3. In the plaint, it was contended interalia that schedule property was unclaimed and locked property situated contiguous to the south of Plot No.14 in L.P.No.21 of 1991; that originally one Saanji Venkata Subba Rao along with others purchased land in an extent of Ac.1.50 cents by way of registered sale deed dated 22.04.1972 and later divided the same into plots; that plot No.16 fell to the share of S.V.Subba Rao; that schedule property is unclaimed and locked property situated contiguous to the south of plot No.16 and is in possession of S.V.Subbarao; that he died intestate on 16.02.1990 and his legal heirs succeeded to plot No.16 and contiguous plot; that unapproved layout was approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning vide L.P.No.21 of 1991 dated 26.07.1993; that plot No.16 was changed to plot No.14; that legal heirs of S.V.Subbarao i.e. Saanji Venkata Naga Vara Prasad and other sold the plot to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 25.02.2002 and handed over item No.1 along with item No.2 of plaint schedule property; that item No.1 is plot No.14 and item No.2 is unclaimed and locked property; that in the years 2011, plaintiff got constructed RCC building in the schedule property apart from shed and has been residing therein; that in the year 2014 due to cyclone, two grown up trees collapsed and damaged the roof and hence, the plaintiff replaced the roof with GI sheets; that local authorities laid road on the southern side of suit schedule property and thereby unclaimed barren land got access; that on 22.04.2019, defendants came with JCB and started cleaning, earth filling and leveling the entire barren land in between suit schedule property and newly laid road upto the compound wall on southern side of suit schedule property and also damaged the compound wall, so as to trespass into item No.2 of schedule property; that plaintiff along with neighbours resisted their illegal acts and eventually, filed the suit seeking injunction.

4. Defendants filed written statement and contended interalia that sale deed of plaintiff does not indicate item No.2 of schedule property; that plot No.14 in L.P.No.21 of 1991 is admeasuring 263 square yards; that on 12.08.1975 1st defendant purchased an extent of 1210 square yards of site in S.No.145, out of 2420 square yards; that northern side boundary owner is shown as Yarramilli Narasimha Rao and others; that Y.Narasimha Rao and other laid out the property into house plots; that as per the sale deed of 1st defendant, towards north of item No.2 of plaint schedule property, the property of Y.Narasimha Rao is situated; that plaintiff with ulterior motive to grab item No.2 of plaint schedule property claimed the same as unclaimed and locked property, though the same is in exclusive possession of 1st defendant; that 2nd defendant, who is a doctor, after retirement settled at Visakhapatnam and 1st defendant being wife of 2nd defendant also residing in Visakhapatnam; taking advantage of defendants 1 and 2 as absentee landlords, plaintiff tried to interfere with property and in fact, partly encroached into item No.2 of plaint schedule property and eventually, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Pending the suit, defendants filed I.A.No.32 of 2022 under Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of CPC to appoint an advocate commissioner to localize item No.1 of plaint schedule property with reference to title deeds of both parties with the assistance of Kakinada Urban Mandal Surveyor.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended interalia that the suit is coming up for cross examination of P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked; that in view of specific stand in written statement that plaintiff with ulterior