ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners against the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet in I.A. No. 433 of 2022 in O.S. No. 62 of 2010.

2. O.S. No. 62 of 2010 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent seeking permanent injunction against the defendants/petitioners. After filing of the written statement, the defendants filed I.A. No. 433 of 2022 under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for localization of the subject matter of the suit and for its measurements with the help of Mandal Surveyor and also to note down its features. The Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet vide order dated 18.11.2022 has dismissed the I.A. and therefore, the present C.R.P. is filed by the defendants in the suit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants, Sri Gandyadapu Rajesham, submitted that the plaintiff has sought permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, but the boundaries mentioned in the suit are not correct and the boundaries mentioned therein are the boundaries of the defendants’ property. It is submitted that the same has been submitted in the written statement filed by the defendants/petitioners herein and since it was felt that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is necessary for inspection and localization of the subject property and also to note down the physical features thereof, an application for the same was filed by the defendants. It is submitted that the lower Court has dismissed the application by observing that the petition is filed only to drag on the matter without any bona-fide reason and that the petitioners did not specify the boundaries in their written statement and it is for the first time that the petitioners are alleging that their land is bounded by such and such property and the basis for such contention is a simple unregistered sale deed which did not contain any boundaries. It is submitted that the Court has dismissed the application without verifying the material available on record. In support of his contentions that appointment of Advocate Commissioner is necessary for localisation of the property, he also placed reliance upon the following two decisions:

(1) T. Venkat Ramdev vs. G. Arjun Reddy and Others, 2013 (2) ALD 724

(2) Faimida Begum and Another vs. Shaik Sahbbar Ahmed and Others, 2021 (5) ALD 328 (TS)

4. The learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Sandeep Kumar Bodala, on the other hand, supported the order of the lower Court and submitted that the plaintiff was in possession of the subject land since the date of purchase in the year 2007 and when the petitioners herein have tried to interfere with his possession, he has filed the suit for permanent injunction and in the year 2010, the plaintiff had sought for survey and appointment of Advocate Commissioner for demarcation of the boundaries of the suit land. However, the defendants had opposed and obstructed the same and in fact had attacked the plaintiff and caused injuries for which a criminal case has been registered and the petitioners/defendants have also been convicted for the said charges. It is submitted that since the petitioners herein had opposed appointment of Advocate Commissioner at that time, filing of the present petition at this stage is nothing but to drag on the present proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioners are relying upon the sale deed which is not a registered document, whereas the plaintiff is relying upon a registered sale deed and the allegation that the boundaries mentioned in the registered sale deed are not correct and that the boundaries with regard to the land in the simple sale deed are correct, is not sustainable. Therefore, according to him, the lower Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case before dismissing the I.A. and hence, the CRP is liable to be dismissed.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied