IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in a suit for injunction is permissible when there is a dispute regarding the boundaries and extents of the properties, and it does not amount to gathering evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. C.R.P.No.297 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner - plaintiff against the order dtd. 17/1/2022 in I.A.No.849 of 2021 in I.A.No.583 of 2021 in O.S.No.279 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Suryapet appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit land.

2. C.R.P.No.846 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner - plaintiff against the order dtd. 27/12/2022 in I.A.No.946 of 2022 in I.A.No.583 of 2021 in O.S.No.279 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet for dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner to advance the hearing of I.A.No.583 of 2021 from 23/11/2023.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondents - defendants.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner - plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents with regard to the plaint schedule properties to an extent of Ac.1.00gts. out of Ac.2.00gts.in Survey No.47/2 situated at Dacharam Revenue Village of Athmakur (S) Mandal, Suryapet District and another schedule of land to an extent of Ac.1.18 gts. in Survey No.417/2/1 situated at Athmakur (S) Village and Mandal, Suryapet District. The petitioner also filed an application vide I.A.No.583 of 2021 in the said suit for ad interim injunction against the respondents restraining them from causing interference with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The respondents filed their written statement in the suit and counter in I.A.No.583 of 2021 denying the claim of the petitioner. The respondents had filed I.A.No.849 of 2021 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit lands as well as to ascertain the survey numbers, boundaries and extents. The petitioner filed counter opposing the said petition. But the court below on hearing both sides, passed an order dtd. 17/1/2022 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit land and its boundaries with the help of Mandal Surveyor. Challenging the same, he preferred C.R.P.297 of 2022.

4.1. He further submitted that the court below was not taking I.A.No.583 of 2021 for hearing. No ex-parte order was granted by the court below. The petitioner filed I.A.No.946 of 2022 seeking advancement of I.A.No.583 of 2021 from 28/11/2023 to the nearest date for enquiry, but the court below on hearing both sides dismissed the I.A. by order dtd. 27/12/2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred C.R.P.846 of 2023.

4.2. He further contended that the trial court ought to have seen that the suit filed by the petitioner was for simpliciter injunction in respect of land in Survey No.47/2 to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts. out of Ac.2.00 gts. with specific boundaries and also in Survey No.417/2/1 to an extent of Ac.1.18 gts. with specific boundaries. The respondent / defendant No.2 was claiming to be the owner of the land in Survey No.47/3 to an extent of Ac.1.07 gts., but he failed to furnish the boundaries. However, the boundaries mentioned in sadabainama were completely different from the boundaries of the land of the petitioner. As such, there was no confusion or dispute with regard to identification of suit schedule properties. The land claimed by respondents 1 and 2 in Survey No.39 was to an extent of Ac.3.00 gts. The respondents failed to mention the boundaries of the said property in their written statement or in the petition, but were falsely claiming that the boundaries mentioned by the petitioner in Survey No.417 belonged to Survey No.391, which was absolutely false and without any basis. The court below committed a serious error in allowing I.A.No.849 of 2021 in I.A.No.583 of 2021 in O.S.No.279 of 2021 by order dtd. 17/1/2022. Without there being any necessity or any dispute with regard to identification of property, the court erroneously passed an order a