ORDER :

This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner-respondent-plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2022 in I.A No.1 of 2022 in O.S No.143 of 2017 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudem.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction claiming that he was the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, which was a vacant house site to an extent of 266 Sq. yds., in plot No.17 in Sy.No.805, situated at Paloncha Revenue Village, Paloncha Town and Municipality, Khammam District. The respondents-defendants filed written statement contending that no survey number 805, shown by the plaintiff, was available in the revenue records of Paloncha, as per the information obtained by them under Right to Information Act vide RC No.RTI/ A6122014, dated 22.08.2014. The trial was commenced in the above suit and the petitioner-plaintiff adduced evidence and the matter was posted for defendants’ evidence. The affidavit of DW.1 was also filed and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. When the matter was coming for defendants’ further evidence, at that stage, the respondents-defendants filed I.A No.1 of 2022 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to locate the schedule property with the help of Mandal Surveyor. The said petition was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 26.07.2022.

3.1 The Court below ought to have seen that allowing I.A No.1 of 2022 in O.S No.143 of 2017 was only for collection of evidence. The respondents-defendants were not having any title or right or possession or interest either in Sy.No.802 or 805 as the original owner had sold the entire land in Sy.No.802 to an extent of Ac.1.26 gts., of Paloncha Revenue Village long back in the year 1965 and the names of subsequent purchasers had been entered in revenue records, pahanis and pattas. So, the question of appointment of an advocate commissioner for demarcating the lands would not arise. The defendants had not filed any piece of document in support of their having land in Sy.No.805 except making allegations. The court below erred in coming to a conclusion for appointment of advocate commissioner for demarcating the land in Sy.No.802 and Sy.No.805. No documentary proof was submitted by the respondents-defendants to prove the land in Sy.No.802 and hence, there was no locus standi for the respondents-defendants to seek appointment of advocate commissioner for demarcation of land with the help of Mandal Surveyor and prayed to set aside the order dated 26.07.2022 in I.A No.1 of 2022 in O.S No.143 of 2017 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem. He relied upon the judgments of this Court in A. Gopal Reddy v. R. Subramanyam Reddy and another, 2013 (4) ALD 347, Dammalapati Satyanarayana and others v. Datla Venkata Ramabhadra Raju @ D.V.R. Raju and another, 2006 (4) ALD 675, and Arvind Kumar Agarwal v. Legend Estates (P) Ltd., Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, 2015 (2) ALD 206.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the respondents - defendants had taken a specific plea that no Survey No.805 was available in Paloncha Revenue Records. It was necessary to appoint an advocate commissioner to locate the petition schedule property with the help of Mandal Surveyor. The trial court rightly allowed the petition for effective adjudication of the matter in controversy and relied upon the judgments of this court in Smt. A. Laxmamma and another v. Smt. A. Venkatamma and another, 2016 (6) 795 (DB), M. Yadaiah and another v. M. Chilkamma and others, 2022 (2) ALT 80 (TS) and Adarsh Constructions, Hyderabad and another v. Qamaarunnissa Begum and another, 2022 (3) ALT 662 (TS).

5. Now, the point for consideration is :

Whether the order of the trial court in allowing the petition for appointm