The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in a simplicitor injunction suit requires specific justification, and courts should only interfere when there are clear errors on record.

ORDER :

B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, at Jogipet in I.A.No.52 of 2023 in OS.No.48 of 2012, dated 24.02.2023.

2. Petitioners are the respondents-defendants and the respondent is the petitioner-plaintiff in IA.No.52 of 2023 in OS.No.48 of 2012.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-respondents submits that the trial Court ought to have seen that the suit is for simplicitor injunction, no Advocate Commissioner can be appointed in the absence of circumstances warranting appointment and has committed manifest error in allowing the application in the absence of any specific finding recorded in support of the appointment. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property either with reference to the boundaries or extent of the land and has committed material irregularity in not appreciating the evidence on record with reference to the law governing the subject and it amounts to not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it. The learned trial Court erred in observing that it is necessary to fix up the boundaries of lands in Sy.No.577 and Sy.No.578 with the assistance of a Surveyor, which would amounts to gathering the evidence and to protract the litigation which is not the spirit of the law. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Nerudu Srinivas Reddy and another Vs. Neerudu Sunanda @ Sunanda Reddy @ Sripathy Sunanda Reddy , [2016 (3) ALD 49], (2) Naseeb Deen and Another Vs. Harnek Singh , [ AIR 2019 HP 173 ]

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to fix the boundaries of lands in Sy.Nos.577 and 578 and the Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and the interference of the Court should be if an error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law. Counsel further submits that DW.1 in his cross-examination has stated that there is no connection with the land in Sy.No.577 and suit land i.e., Sy.No.578. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others , [1983 Supreme(SC) 319], (2) Ouseph Mathai & Others Vs. M.Abdul Khadir, [2001 Supreme(SC) 1540], (3) Varala Ramachandra Reddy Vs. Mekala Yadi Reddy [CRP No.186 of 2010 dated 02.06.2010 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad], (4) M.Yadaiah and another Vs. M.Chilkamma and two others [CRP No.294 of 2018 dated 02.12.2021 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad], (5) G.Surender Reddy Vs. Smt.M.Lakshmi , [ 2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 26025 ]

5. Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to the extent that if the orders passed by the learned trial Court are error apparent on the face of the record and extraordinary powers shall not be exercised in a routine manner. See Mohd. Yunus(supra)and Ouseph Mathai’s case(supra)

6.1. Respondent is the plaintiff in OS.No.48 of 2012, he filed the suit for perpetual injunction stating that he raised maize and redgram crop and the petitioners-respondents-defendants tried to damage the crop on 08.10.2012 and he tried to resist them with the help of adjacent land holders. The suit schedule property is agricul