Procedural laws should prioritize the pursuit of truth over mere evidential collection, allowing for proactive measures like the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present civil revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 24.07.2023 in IA No.150 of 2021 in OS No.181 of 2016 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, East Godavari District.

2. Petitioners are the defendants. The suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the suit schedule property. The petitioners filed above IA No.150 of 2021 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the petitioners filed written statement as well as additional written statement. It is their submission that his father has constructed thatched shed in the year 1992 in about Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.333/2 within the boundaries of the plaint schedule property. It is their plea that in the thatched shed, they have been placing their cattle, goat, sheep and hens. The Tetaguta Panchayat also levied tax to the said RCC building in the year 2015 and they have been paying the same.

3. In the year 2020, the petitioners constructed RCC building consisting of four rooms in about Ac.0.04 cents within the boundaries of plaint schedule property and they have been paying electrical charges to the said connection. It was in that context, the application was filed for the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features in the schedule property. This application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that the appointment is sought for more collection of evidence, hence sought for rejection of the same. The Trial Court, vide impugned order rejected the application on contest. Hence, the civil revision petition.

4. Heard Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri G. Venkata Subba Raju, learned Counsel for the respondents.

5. In support of their contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on judgments of this Court in Ramakka v. Muneppa (died) and another, 2024 (5) ALT 383 (AP) and CRP No.2114 of 2019 and learned Counsel for the respondents relied on Thalla Sulochana v. Thalla Issac and another , 2012 (3) ALT 260 , for opposing the claim that the application is filed only for collection of evidence.

6. Having heard the respective Counsel, it is a matter of curiosity as to why the plaintiffs/respondents are opposing the appointment of Advocate Commissioner. Merely because the defendants/petitioners seek for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, the same per se does not mean that the report would be in favour of the defendants/petitioners. If the structures as pleaded by the petitioners are in existence and the Advocate Commissioner records the same, a lot of judicial time could be saved and the Court would be better informed about the status of affairs at the ground level.

7. The opposition on the ground that the appointment of Advocate Commissioner amounts to collection of evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the Advocate Commissioner is not appointed for collection of evidence but for gathering the truth or could be termed as a pursuit of truth by the Court, which is the core purpose of the Court. The procedural laws are meant to aid the discovery of truth for Court to render apt justice, but the procedural law should not be used as a hindrance to the pursuit of truth. Such a proactive approach by Courts would help in mitigating speculative litigation, save judicial time and the contesting parties would be relieved of the unwanted long trials.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira , (2012) 5 SCC 370