The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 is limited and requires demonstrable error for intervention, affirming the use of appropriate maps for measuring property boundaries.

ORDER :

B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the common order dated 24.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.158 of 2021 in O.S.No.358 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar (No CRP is filed against I.A.No.157 of 2021).

2. Learned trial Court has allowed I.A.No.158 of 2021 filed by respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9(4) R/w. Section 151 of CPC.

3. Petitioner herein is respondent No.1-defendant No.1, respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are respondent Nos.2 and 3-defendant Nos.2 and 3, in I.A.No.158 of 2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court grossly erred in allowing the petition in I.A.No.158 of 2021 basing on conjectures and surmises. Learned trial Court ought to have dismissed the petition in holding that it is not possible to measure the lands without the help of Tippon and FMB (Field Measurement Book) because the sub-division numbers and extents will be mentioned therein. Learned trial Court failed to take into consideration that no purpose would be served if the Commissioner is re-directed to survey the lands with the help of Village Map (Naksha) since no sub-division numbers and extents will be mentioned therein. Learned trial Court also erred in coming to a conclusion that the very purpose of passing the orders in I.A.No.454 of 2017 and I.A.No.335 of 2019 would be defeated if the Commissioner is not re-directed to measure the land with the help of Village Map (Naksha) and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-petitioner-plaitniff submits that the learned trial Court has appreciated the contentions raised by the parties by taking into consideration of the orders passed earlier in I.A.No.454 of 2017 and I.A.No.335 of 2019 and rightly allowed the application, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the same.

6. Learned counsels have filed their written arguments.

7. Power of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan – 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985).

8. Respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff filed I.A.No.158 of 2021 to re-direct Sri.M. Raja Ram, Advocate, Kodad Town, Suryapet District to measure and to fix the boundary stones of the suit schedule property and the entire land including pootu kharab in Sy.No.163 of Ganapavaram revenue village, Kodad Mandal, Suryapet District, with Village Map (Naksha), with iron chain and GPS (Global Positioning System).

9. Petitioner-respondent No.1-defendant No.1 has filed counter contending that respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff is intending to invite a pre-trial judgment from the Court through Advocate Commissioner, which is not permissible under law and further stated that no such land is available on the spot even according to the earlier Advocate Commissioner report and prayed to dismiss I.A.No.158 of 2021.

10. Respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.358 of 2014 for declaration of title, recovery of possession, for correction of entries in the Rev