In a suit for perpetual injunction, boundaries prevail over survey numbers, and the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the location of the property is not justified.

ORDER:

RENUKA YARA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and Mr. N. Srinivas Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda in I.A.No.34 of 2022 in O.S.No.220 of 2015, dated 19.06.2023, wherein, the said petition filed by the respondents herein under Order 26, Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was allowed by passing the following order:

“7. In the result, petition is allowed. Sri M. Kumar Reddy, Advocate is appointed as Advocate Commissioner to measure and find out that whether the suit schedule land is in Sy.No.126 or in Sy.No.139 of Vemulapally Village with the help competent surveyor i.e., Vemulapally Mandal Surveyor to note down the physical features of the suit schedule land and prepare a plan and file the same along with his report. The fee of Advocate commissioner is fixed at Rs.5,000/- and Commissioner is directed to file the report within 30 days from the date of this order.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the main suit in O.S.No.220 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner herein seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents herein from interfering with the suit schedule property consisting of open place to an extent of Ac.0.09 Gts. and 27 sq.yds. in Sy.No.126 in which the residential house bearing door No.7-2 is constructed within Grampanchayat limits of Vemulapally Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. The said suit is currently at the stage of respondents/defendants’ further evidence and at that stage, they have filed the petition under revision seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure and fix up boundary stones to the suit schedule property and note down the physical features of the suit schedule land and permit the respondents to take photographs and video at the time of commission work.

4. The petitioner herein opposed the said petition alleging that the suit filed is for injunction simplicitor, that the petitioner is claiming land in Sy.No.126 whereas respondents are claiming that the said land covers in Sy.No.139 and therefore, the attempt of the respondents to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to find out whether the suit land is in Sy.No.126 or 139 and to note down physical features according to the petitioner is collection of evidence through an Advocate Commissioner and the same is against settled principles of law. Further, it is pleaded that no reason is cited for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down physical features and to fix boundaries. No extraordinary physical features are existing and there is a possibility of destroying or changing the existing structures and therefore, opposed the appointment of Advocate Commissioner.

5. Upon considering the case of both the parties, the learned Trial Court came to a conclusion that the petitioner herein is claiming the suit schedule land in Sy.No.126 whereas the respondents herein are claiming the suit schedule property to be situated in Sy.No.139 and that the petitioner has nothing to do with Sy.No.126. It is held that there is a dispute about the identity of subject land and therefore, it is necessary to note the physical features of suit schedule property and therefore, allowed the petition.

6. In grounds of revision, the petitioner pleaded that she is facing hardship due to appointment of Advocate Commissioner for getting the land surveyed as the respondents are making efforts to collect false evidenc