The court ruled that appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner is permissible before trial if it clarifies property disputes; however, it found it unnecessary in this case as the facts did not warrant further investigation.

ORDER :

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J.

Since the issue involved in all these revision petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in CRP No.1205 of 2021 are discussed hereunder.

3. The revision petitioner herein and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the defendants and 1st respondent is the plaintiff.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent-plaintiff has filed OS No.49 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet, for declaration of title as well as perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. In the suit, the evidence of the plaintiff has been completed and now, it is coming for the defendants' side evidence. At this stage, the revision petitioner herein has filed IA No.640 of 2018 seeking to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features and conduct survey of the suit land to find out location of suit schedule property in which the survey number is located. The Court below had rejected the said IA vide order dated 18.02.2020. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the 1st respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit claiming the property of the revision petitioner herein on the strength of the schedule in the sale deed, but, the schedule of the sale deed of the 1st respondent/plaintiff is incorrect. In fact, the revision petitioner was granted patta by the then Tahsildar to an extent of Ac.0.15 guntas in Sy.No.221, another Ac.0.15 guntas of land in Sy.No.222, vide proceedings dated 20th June, 2007. At the time of assigning the land in favour of the petitioner, the Tahsildar had conducted detailed survey and fixed the boundaries in favour of the revision petitioner, wherein it was clearly mentioned that the northern side of the revision petitioner's property, there is a Moosi canal, on that strength, the 1st respondent-plaintiff is claiming the entire property of the revision petitioner and showing the boundaries of the 1st respondent-plaintiff's property as one of the boundaries on the northern side of Moosi canal, which would mean that the land of the petitioner is already included, which is not permissible under law. Learned Counsel further contended that appropriate orders be passed in the civil revision petition directing the Court below to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner for conducting survey of the suit schedule property with the help of Deputy Inspector of Survey and to note down the physical features and conduct survey of the suit land to find out location of suit schedule property in which survey number is located.

6. Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the suit has been filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff herein claiming the suit schedule property on the strength of the sale deed executed in his favour and the defendants are having any title over the said property, they can demonstrate the Court below and lead his evidence, but the revision petitioner cannot be permitted to seek appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner which amounts to gathering of evidence, pending the suit.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in CRP No.4855 of 2015, dated 09.09.2019, wherein this Court held as under :
"Though the Counsel for petitioner contended that the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner cannot be permitted, this Court in Jajula Koteshwar Rao v. Ravulapalli Masthan Rao and Badana Mutyalu and Badana