The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is justified in boundary disputes to provide clarity, based on the discretion of the Court under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

Aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2025 in I.A. No. 182 of 2024 in O.S. No. 150 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial, appointing an Advocate Commissioner, this Civil Revision Petition is filed by the unsuccessful Defendants 4 and 5 in the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. The case of plaintiffs is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of dry land in Survey No. 42 to an extent of Ac. 2.35 guntas, situated at Naspur Village, Mancherial Town and Mandal, Adilabad District. When Revenue authorities (Defendants 1 to 3) tried to dispossess plaintiffs from the schedule lands without following due process of law, they filed Writ Petition No. 11112 of 2013 which was disposed of by order dated 23.03.2013 directing not to dispossess Plaintiff No.1 except in accordance with law after putting her on notice and giving an opportunity of being heard. Despite, Revenue authorities issued Form-D1 and proceedings dated 13.05.2013 assigning plaintiff's land in favour of the 4^th defendant, therefore, plaintiffs filed Contempt Case No. 1618 of 2013. In this Contempt Case, Revenue officials filed an additional counter along with a Plan showing plaintiffs' land in BLUE colour and the land allotted to Defendant No.4 in BROWN colour and contended that both are different lands. On the strength of the counter, this Court closed the Contempt Case by order dated 10.04.2015.

3.1. Later, plaintiffs filed another Contempt Case No. 1021 of 2015 stating that Revenue authorities played fraud by manipulating the Plan, showing the schedule of property elsewhere in Blue Colour, while the fact remains that schedule of property as shown in Brown colour only to avoid the consequences of contempt. This Court while closing the case by order dated 31.07.2015 has 'observed that ‘the question whether the land shown in brown colour belongs to petitioner or to the 4^th respondent is extraneous to the order passed in the Writ Petition. This Court while examining whether or not the petitioner was dispossessed in violation of the order passed in Writ Petition, cannot, in summary proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, adjudicate whether the land shown in the map in brown colour belongs to petitioner or to the fourth respondent. These are all matters for adjudication in a civil suit filed before the Competent Civil Court. ...'

3.2. In tune with the observations in the Contempt Case, plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 150 of 2015 before the Senior Civil Judge at Mancherial, under Section 26, Order-VII Rule-1 of C.P.C., for declaration of title in respect of schedule of property and that schedule of property is located in Brown Colour in the Plan and for consequential injunction. In the said suit, plaintiffs filed the subject Application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Sec. 151 CPC to appoint Advocate Commissioner to trace out the fact that suit schedule boundaries or boundary named persons or their legal heirs identity available in brown and blue colour of the location map, for adjudication of the case. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Defendants 1 to 3 (Revenue authorities) has not objected for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. However, the unofficial Defendants 5 and 6 filed counter affidavit contesting the IA alleging that plaintiffs can prove their case by adducing cogent oral and documentary evidence but not by resorting to appointment of Advocate Commissioner and by way of appointment of Commissioner the party is not expected to gather the