SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 715

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Nandala Anvesh - Appellant 
Vs.
Mamidala Vijay - Respondent 
Civil Revision Petition No. 4205 of 2024 
Decided on : 04-04-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : VEDULA CHITRALEKHA
For the Respondent: GADDAM SRINIVAS

The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is not allowed solely for evidence collection but rather to assist the court in clarifying disputes under specified procedural guidelines.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 26 Rule 9 - Appointment of Advocate Commissioner - Civil revision petition challenging the order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to fix boundaries was allowed as it was deemed unconstitutional for collecting evidence - The trial Court must assist the investigation without breaching its procedural powers. (Paras 2, 4, 14)

(B) Evidence Collection - The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is not permissible when it primarily seeks to collect evidence rather than assist in clarifying the matters in dispute - Courts should only appoint a Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 when there is a clear necessity for elucidating certain facts in a suit, not for boundary disputes that are primarily evidentiary in nature. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
This civil revision petition was filed by the petitioners challenging the order granting the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in connection with an ongoing suit regarding property disputes over land in Karimnagar—a suit for declaring titled ownership and injunction pertaining to two registered gift deeds. The respondent claimed ownership while asserting the necessity of determining boundaries through a survey. (Paras 3, 5)

Findings of Court:
The impugned order of the trial Court, which allowed the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to fix boundaries, was reversed as being against the mandate of the Code of Civil Procedure; however, the respondent was granted liberty to seek a fresh application for legitimate surveying purposes. (Paras 14, 15)

Issues: Main issues included whether the trial Court could legally appoint an Advocate Commissioner to fix land boundaries and the impermissibility of collecting evidence through such an appointment. (Paras 4, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner serves to clarify matters in a suit, its role should not infringe upon gathering evidence, which should occur through permissible legal means. It determined that the order exceeded the scope of Section 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. (Paras 10, 14)

Result: Civil revision petition allowed; appointment of Advocate Commissioner set aside.

Table of Content
1. challenge against interlocutory application and decree. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. response to the appeal on advocate commission. (Para 5 , 6)
3. purpose of appointing an advocate commissioner. (Para 8 , 11)
4. limitations on the scope of advocate commissioner. (Para 9 , 12 , 14)
5. final decision and order of the court. (Para 15)

ORDER :

K. LAKSHMAN, J.

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 30.10.2024 in I.A.No.738 of 2022 in I.A.No.296 of 2022 in O.S.No.321 of 2022 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar.

3. Respondent has filed a suit vide O.S.No.321 of 2022 against the petitioners herein for declaration of the title, perpetual injunction and to declare the registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.3818 of 2022, dated 29.03.2022 and registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.3816 of 2022, dated 29.03.2022 as null and void. Respondent is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the open plot measuring 304.88 square yards pertaining to part of house bearing door No.805-547/D/2/2/A/1 out of Sy.No.436 situated at Raghavendranagar of Laxminagar locality, Karimnagar Town, Mandal and District. Along with the suit, he has filed an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.296 of 2022 seeking ad-interim injunction. The said application is pending.

4. During pendency of the said suit and the said application, respondent has filed an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.738 of 2022 under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to fix the boundaries in between the land in Sy.Nos.435 and 436 of Karimnagar and located the suit plot in which survey number the said plot falls through the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Karimnagar Division, enabling the respondent/plaintiff to proceed further in the suit on the following grounds:-

i) Defendants along with their father converted their land in Sy.No.435 of Karimnagar town into residential plots and while converting the same they have formed internal roads in the plots, thereby they have lost some area.

ii) To cover up the lost area in forming roads in Sy.No.435 of Karimnagar, they have illegally made layout by showing some area in Sy.No.436 of Karimnagar as their land in Sy.No.435. As per the said layouts, plot Nos.2 to 5 are located in Sy.No.436 only. But, they are illegally saying that the said plots are located in Sy.No.435 of Karimnagar. But, the plaintiff’s vendor restrained them from fixing the boundaries as plot Nos.2 to 5 and his vendor filed a petition before the Land Survey Department to survey and to fix the boundaries in respect of land in Sy.Nos.435 and 436 of Karimnagar. The Deputy Inspector of Survey, Karimnagar Division visited the disputed area and got surveyed the same and fixed the boundaries between the Sy.Nos.435 and 436 of Karimnagar, under cover of panchanama on 17.08.2021.

iii) It is further contended that as per the survey report, plot Nos.2 to 5 of the petitioners are located in Sy.No.436 of Karimnagar only. Even after the survey, having come to know about the truth, but the petitioners herein in collusion with their father brought into existence the registered gift deeds illegally with an intention to occupy the area including suit plot in Sy.No.436 of Karimnagar by saying the area in Sy.No.435 of Karimnagar. In fact, plot Nos.2 and 3 of petitioners are in Sy.No.436. Therefore, to ascertain the said fact and to fix the boundaries in between the land in Sy.Nos.435 and 436, it is appropriate to appoint an Advocate Commissioner.

5. The said application was opposed by the petitioners herein contending that respondent/plaintiff cannot seek appointment of an Ad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top