The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors, ensuring proper exercise of powers by trial courts.

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 in I.A.No.302 of 2021 in OS No.9 of 2017 by the learned Junior Civil Judge -Cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Korutla, Jagtial District in dismissing the application filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner vide order dated 04.07.2022.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the suit vide OS.No.9 of 2017.

3.1. Petitioner has filed I.A.No.302 of 2021 under Order 26 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to fix the boundaries of suit Survey No.798 with the help of Mandal Surveyor or any other Superior Officer.

3.2. It is stated in the affidavit in IA.No.302 of 2021 that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the open land admeasuring Ac.00-09 guntas in Survey No. situated at Korutla Shivaru and within the limits of Korutla Revenue Mandal, Jagtial District and the respondents-defendants without having right, title or possession over the suit schedule land, interfered in his possession, which compelled him to file a suit for perpetual injunction. The respondents-defendants alleged to have the respective lands in Survey No.752 which is adjacent to the suit survey number i.e., 798 and they have also filed the respective suits in respect of the alleged lands in the above said survey number vide OS Nos.123 of 2015, 124 of 2015, 125 of 2015 and 126 of 2015 before the same Court which is pending consideration. The land of the petitioner and the lands of the respondents-defendants are pertaining to different survey numbers and both survey numbers are adjacent to each other. As such in view of both side suits and to come to a conclusion of both the conflicts placed in the suits, it is necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to fix the boundaries of the suit survey number.

4. Respondents-defendants have filed their counter and contended that they filed suits against the petitioner prior to filing the suit by him before the same Court vide OS Nos.123, 124, 125 and 126 of 2015 in respect of agriculture land to an extent of 9 ½ guntas each in Survey No. situated at Korutla Shivaru and Mandal and the same are pending. The suit filed by the petitioner is for perpetual injection in respect of land to an extent of Ac.00-9 guntas in Survey No. the burden lies on him to prove and establish his possession in respect of his property and the appointment of Advocate Commissioner leads to collection of evidence and prayed to dismiss the same.

5. The learned trial Court after considering the pleadings of the parties, has dismissed IA.No.302 of 2021 vide order dated 04.07.2022 which is impugned in the CRP.

6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.00-09 Guntas in the respondents without there being any right or title over the petitioner's land started illegal interference which led to filing the suit in OS No.9 of 2017. The respondents-defendants alleged to have their respective lands in Survey No.752 which is adjacent to the land of the petitioner in Therefore, IA No.302 of 2021 is filed under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for measuring the suit schedule property with the help of Mandal Surveyor.

6.2. The learned trial Court without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner and without looking into the legal position that for quietus of the litigation between the petitioner and the respondents- defendants instead of appointing an Advocate Commissioner for measuring the suit schedule property and simply stated that in an injunction suit, burden lies on the petitioner to prove his possession and enjoyment and the sam