Point of Law: If it was a case of demarcation of disputed land, it was appropriate for the court to direct the investigation by appointing a Local.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was directed against the order dated 12.10.2020 passed in I.A. No. 777 of 2019 in A.S. No. 20 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the VIII Additional District Judge, Medak, wherein and whereby the appellate Court dismissed the said I.A. filed by the petitioner seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner.

2. The facts germane for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition, in nutshell, are that respondent herein filed O.S. No. 74 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Medak, for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein and others from interfering with the land in Sy. No. 30/AA admeasuring Ac. 1-00 guntas of Chegunta village. The case of the respondent being the plaintiff in the said suit was that he purchased the suit schedule property from one G. Muthyalu through registered document No. 1865/2008 dated 22.7.2008 for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/- and ever since he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. However, since the petitioner herein and others are trying to interfere with his possession over the said property without any manner of right, he filed the suit seeking permanent injunction. The petitioner herein and three others filed written statement stating that one Ramaiah was the original owner of the suit land to an extent of Ac. 3-12 guntas in Sy. No. 30 out of which he sold Ac. 0-10 gunts each to the petitioner and other defendants in the suit through ordinary sale-deed and the sale was regularized by Tahsildar, Chegunta after recording the statement of said Ramaiah under Section 13-B, vide proceeding No. B/4694/05. The petitioner further stated that subsequently the property was transferred in the name of Muthyalu S/o Ramaiah. The respondent herein, having fully known about the execution of sale-deed in favour of the petitioner by Ramaiah, got executed the sale-deed in his favour from said Muthyalu.

3. The trial Court, after framing appropriate issues, recording evidence on both sides and hearing learned counsel on both sides, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent herein granting permanent injunction.

4. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court, the petitioner and others preferred A.S. No. 20 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the VIII Additional District Judge, Medak. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 777 of 2017 under Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC, seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner to survey the lands in Sy. No. 30, total extent of Ac. 6-24 guntas and identify the land of the petitioners and to note down the physical features and measurements of land with the help of surveyor. The case of the petitioner was that the trial Court in its judgment held that when the entire extent of Sy. No. 30 is more than Ac. 6-00 guntas and the extent of land claimed by both parties is only Ac. 2-00 guntas, the point that both parties are having land cannot be ruled out and it is their duty to get it surveyed with surveyor. Therefore, advocate commissioner may be appointed to survey the respective lands of the parties. The respondent herein filed his counter denying the pleadings of the petitioner contending that the petitioner did not take any steps before the trial Court to appoint an advocate commissioner to survey and demarcate the lands in Sy. No. 30 to an extent of Ac. 6-24 guntas and to identify the lands of the petitioner and note down the physical features of the land etc.

5. The appellate Court by order dated 12.10.2020 dismissed the I.A. No. 777 of 2020, which is impugned herein, observing that advocate commissioner cannot be appointed to collect and gather evidence in respect of suit schedule property of either parties to establish who is in possession of which land and that in a suit for permanent injunction the parties to the litigation should establish their possession by way of evidence both oral and documenta