The appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner is justified under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC to resolve property boundary disputes, even if a previous suit exists, provided the circumstances differ.

ORDER :

Kunuru Lakshman, J.

1. Heard Smt. R. Madhavi Latha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 19.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.273 of 2021 in I.A.No.7 of 2020 in O.S.No.18 of 2020 by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Karimnagar.

3. Respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit vide O.S.No.18 of 2020 for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants and their men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. She has also filed I.A.No.7 of 2020 in the said suit seeking ad-interim injunction. During pendency of the said suit and in the said I.A. No.7 of 2020, respondent/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.273 of 2021 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to measure and fix boundaries to the lands in Sy.Nos.124 and 125 situated at Vegurupalli Village, Manakondur Mandal, Karimnagar District, and also to ascertain the suit land and its survey number through Mandal Surveyor, contending as follows:-

i. The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property i.e. agricultural land in Sy.No.124/AB(new), corresponding to its old No.124/A, Ac.0.02guntas in Sy.No.125/E which are adjoining to each other consisting of one compact block, totally measuring Ac.0.27guntas, situated at Vegurupalli Village of Manakondur Mandal, Karimnagar District (for short, 'the subject property').

ii. She has purchased the subject property along with other lands from Bandari Mallaiah and Bandari Nirmala through registered sale deed bearing document No.104/2017, mutation was effected and latest pattadar passbooks were also issued in her favour.

iii. Prior to purchasing the said lands, her vendors acquired the said lands through registered gift settlement deeds bearing document Nos.5161 of 2005 and 66 of 2006 respectively from its original pattadars.

iv. The defendants in the written statement claimed that their forefathers were cultivating the land admeasuring Ac.0.16guntas attached to land in Sy.No.125/C of Vegurupalli Village, part and parcel of suit land which is bounded by stone poles, but no document is filed in support of the same.

v. They further claimed that the said dispute will be solved if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed to fix the boundaries of Sy.Nos.124 and 125 of Vegurupalli.

vi. In fact, suit schedule property is located in Sy.No.124 of Vegurupalli Village. In the suit filed by her husband and his brother vide O.S.No.358 of 2013 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, Advocate Commissioner was appointed who surveyed the land and fixed boundaries to Sy.No.124 and laid stone pillar with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor and Police, Manakondur as the respondents/ defendants obstructed the Advocate Commissioner's work and the said Advocate Commissioner also submitted report to the said effect.

vii. After dismissal of the said suit, plaintiff has filed the present suit narrating the said facts and obtained ex parte interim order, the same is in force.

viii. During subsistence of the said interim injunction, defendants illegally trespassed into her land and removed the boundary stone pillars erected by the Mandal Surveyor on the instructions of the Advocate-Commissioner. The plaintiff lodged a complaint with Police, who in turn, registered a case in Cr.No.226 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.

ix. It is essential to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to survey the land in Sy.Nos.124 and 125 of Vegurupalli Village, fix boundaries to both the survey numbers to resolve the issue.

x. No prejudice will be caused to the defendants if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed.

4. The said application was opposed by the defendants contending that in the earlier suit in O.S.No.358 of 2013 filed by the plaintiff's hus