The High Court’s supervisory power under Article 227 can only be exercised to correct grave errors; dismissal of Advocate Commissioner application upheld as lawful.

ORDER :

B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 11.03.2022 in IA.No.296 of 2021 in OS.No.30 of 2018 passed by the IX Additional District Judge at Sircilla.

2.1. Petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in OS.No.30 of 2018.

2.2. Petitioners-plaintiffs have filed suit in the month of April, 2007 seeking relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction and subsequently, amended the prayer converting the suit from above said reliefs to declaration of title and recovery of possession and for perpetual injunction.

3. Petitioners have stated in IA No.296 of 2021 that the petitioner No.1 is the owner and possessor, enjoyer, cultivator of agricultural land in Sy.No.1330/C admeasuring Acs.02-15 gts., and in Sy.No.1331/A admeasuring Acs.04-12 gts. Petitioner No.2 is the owner and possessor of dry land in Sy.No.1330/B to an extent of Ac.0-26 gts., situated at Marlapeta Village H/o. Vilasaggar Village of Boinpally Mandal of Rajanna, Sircilla District. The respondents- defendants are in illegal occupation of the suit land and have no interest whatsoever over the same. It is learnt that the respondents- defendants are trying to make illegal construction in the suit land to change the nature of the property, if they succeeds, it will lead to multiplicity of litigations and they will suffer a lot, prayed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit land.

4. Respondents-defendant Nos.1 to 4 have filed their counter contending that the petitioners are examined as PWs.1 and 2 and when the suit was posted for further evidence, the Commissioner application came to be filed which is for collection of evidence and the affidavit do not reveal any such alleged construction during their cross- examination nor they filed any photographs to substantiate their contention. The suit lands are agricultural lands being cultivated by the respondents-defendants and there is no scope of any construction and they are in possession of the suit properties since more than 20 years.

5. The learned trial Court after going through the material placed on record has dismissed the application for appointment of Commissioner on 11.03.2022 which is impugned in the CRP.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below without looking into the grounds raised by the petitioners in the affidavit simply dismissed the application for appointment of Commissioner on erroneous grounds and the Court below failed to see that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the physical features of the suit land are noted down and also failed to exercise its powers in passing the order. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Haryana Waqf Board Vs. Shanti Sarup , [2008 LawSuit (SC) 2228], (2) M.Yadaiah and Anr Vs. M.Chilkamma and  Others , [2021 LawSuit (TS) 1525], (3) Mallikarjuna Srinivas Gupta Vs. K.Sheshirekha , [2006 LawSuit (AP) 248], (4) Faimida Begum & Anr Vs. Shaik Sahbbar Ahmed & Others, [2021 LawSuit(TS)]

7. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants submits that the learned trial Court has assigned reasons while dismissing the application for appointment of Commissioner holding that no material is placed. Counsel to substantiate his contentions, has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Balamani Vs. The State of Andhra P