ORDER :

Dr. G. Radha Rani, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition No.411 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner/respondent/defendant aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 28.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.229 of 2017 in O.S.No.52 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kodad.

2. The Civil Revision Petition No.417 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner/respondent/defendant aggrieved by the docket order dated 20.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.515 of 2022 in I.A.No.230 of 2016 in O.S.No.52 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kodad.

3. I.A.No.229 of 2017 is filed by the respondents/petitioners/ plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of C.P.C. to amend the plaint schedule boundaries.

4. I.A.No.515 of 2022 in I.A.No.230 of 2016 in O.S.No.52 of 2016 is filed by the respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the schedule in I.A.No.230 of 2016 filed for seeking temporary injunction.

5. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial Court.

6. The plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction claiming that they were owners and possessors of the agricultural land in Sy.Nos.19/2, 18/5 to an extent of Ac.2-75 cents and Ac.0-71 cents totally admeasuring Ac.3-49 cents situated at Nadigudem village and mandal, Nalgonda District. They contended that the defendant who was having lands on the northern boundary of the suit schedule property was causing interference with their possession. They filed I.A.No.230 of 2016 seeking temporary injunction. An ex parte ad- interim injunction order was passed in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant made his appearance and filed his written statement in O.S.No.52 of 2016 and counter in I.A.No.230 of 2016. The defendant in his written statement as well as in the counter contended that he and his family were in possession of the suit schedule property since more than 55 years and their family had perfected their title by adverse possession and contended that the land in Sy.Nos.18/5 and 19/2 was not a compact block as contended by the plaintiffs. The land in Sy.No.18/5 was located towards western side of land in Sy.No.19/2 and both these lands were intervened by a vaagu. Under the guise of temporary injunction, the plaintiffs got cut the toddy trees and attempted to level the vaagu by engaging a dozer machine. He contended that the land in Sy.No.18/5 was a wet land and the land in Sy.No.19/2 was a lemon garden. A suit for simple injunction was not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title, as the plaintiffs were not in possession in the suit property since more than 55 years, they would not get any right over the suit land and that they had to file a suit for recovery of possession.

7. The defendant in the suit had filed an application vide I.A.No.719 of 2016 in I.A.No.230 of 2016 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to make note of the physical features of the schedule property contending that the plaintiffs were changing the nature of the land and boundaries. The same was allowed by the trial Court and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for noting down the physical features.

8. Aggrieved by the said order in I.A.No.719 of 2016 dated 17.02.2017, the plaintiffs preferred a Civil Revision Petition vide C.R.P.No.861 of 2017. The same was dismissed by this Court on 14.07.2017, confirming the orders of the trial court dated 17.02.2017 in I.A.No.719 of 2016 in I.A.No.230 of 2016. The Advocate Commissioner also submitted his report on 08.08.2017.

9. The plaintiffs filed the above applications seeking to amend the plaint schedule boundar