Trial Court may not modify orders without sufficient justification and must consider all previous decisions unless challenged.

ORDER:

B.S.BHANUMATHI, J.

This revision is filed aggrieved by the docket order, dated 27.11.2024, passed in I.A.No.34 of 2024 in O.S.No.1033 of 2023 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI, Rule 9 and Section 151 C.P.C. to appoint an advocate commissioner by directing him to inspect the petition schedule property, on the urgent process, for the purpose of investigation by directing him to take the assistance of Municipal Surveyor, Kurnool, and to file his report with sketches thereof into Court.

2. The facts, briefly stated in the petition, are as follows:

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendants seeking the relief of permanent injunction and to pass a decree in his favour. The defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement. Even after filing of the suit, on 09.11.2023 and 15.11.2023, the defendants tried to encroach into and highhandedly occupy the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff presented a complaint to III Town Police Station, Kurnool, against the defendants and their men. At the time of enquiry before the Circle Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Kurnool, the defendants stated that already a suit in respect of plot No.7 in Sy.No.719-A of Kallur, on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, in O.S.No.791 of 2016 filed by Sarath Kumar Reddy though his G.P.A. holder, Shivalinga Reddy is pending. Both the plaint schedule open site and the plot No.7 are situated at different places in the same survey number. The police advised both the parties to file petition for appointment of an advocate commissioner. Therefore, the plaintiff filed petition with a prayer to appoint an advocate commissioner.

3. The respondents filed counter denying the allegations and stating that the petition is not maintainable.

4. The trial Court allowed the petition on 22.01.2024 and appointed an advocate commissioner and issued a warrant with the following directions:

“ Hence, Sri Shaik Khadar Basha is hereby appointed as an advocate commissioner to inspect the petition schedule property and also 13 plots in Sy.No.719/A and note down the physical features and measurement of the same, with assistance of Municipal Surveyor, Kurnool. Further directed to file detailed report with sketches thereof of Municipal Surveyor, Municipal Corporation, Kurnool. Further the Advocate Commissioner is hereby directed to issue notices to both the parties and also their respective counsel, before inspecting the petition schedule property by taking work memos from both counsels.”

5. The commissioner filed a preliminary report. The observations made in the preliminary report read as follows:

“3.… … … I perused the warrant directions once again and found that it is very impossible for measuring each plot located in Survey No.719/A of Kallur village this juncture, because the purchasers of the respective plots already constructed the shops and house buildings therein. If I measure each and every plot, provided by the respondents counsel, with assistance of the Municipal Surveyor, KMC, Kurnool, it leads to drag on the other dwellers in the respective plots, unnecessarily into litigation.

4. It is submitted that as per my observation, the dispute is in between the petitioner and the respondents only in the suit. While at the time of raising objection on both sides, meanwhile I observed that, out of 13 plots, except the respondents and petitioner remaining owners of the plots are in peace and enjoyment of the same by constructing their houses and shops therein, as per the layout plan provided by the res