ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram in I.A. No.337 of 2013 in O.S. No.273 of 2006 dated 17.07.2013 wherein and whereby learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to demarcate ‘A’ ‘B’ ‘C’ petition schedule properties with the help of Mandal Surveyor.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief before the trial Court is that she purchased land to an extent of Ac.0.063/4cents under two registered sale deeds dated 23.04.1993 and 06.01.2003 from two different persons in the same survey number which is shown as petition ‘A’ schedule property wherein he is said to be planted coconut saplings. The petitioner submits that respondent No.1 asked him to sell the plaint schedule property which he refused and then they are trying trespass into the plaint schedule property and then she filed suit for declaration of her right and permanent injunction restraining the respondents and their men from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that after filing of the suit, she came to know that D-4, D-7 and D-8 with a malafide intention created false documents in the name of D-1 and they are also claiming right over ‘A’ schedule property. The main contention of the petitioner is that property which respondents are claiming is no way related to the suit schedule property for which she filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction and as there is no dispute, with regard to the identity of the property and to prove that property which respondents are claiming is no way connected with plaint schedule property,she sought appointment of Advocate Commissioner to demarcate ‘A’ ‘B’ ‘C’ petition schedule properties with the help of Mandal Surveyor.

4. The respondent No.1 filed counter before trial Court denying averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention of respondent No.1that general power of attorney holder of the petitioner who is her brother as PW-1 has admitted that property which he purchased from respondent Nos.4,7 & 8 under registered sale deed dated 8.10.2003 is the plaint schedule property, due to that Advocate Commissioner need not be appointed to localise or demarcate the land which amounts to collection of evidence which is not permissible under law. It is also the contention of respondent of No.1 that petitioner also filed O.S. No.368 of 2010, wherein she sought cancellation of sale deed dated 13.10.2003 in respect of suit schedule property site which itself shows that there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property. He prays to dismiss the petition.

5. After hearing both sides learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner by observing that in a suit for permanent injunction petitioner is not entitled to seek appointment of Advocate Commissioner and it is for the petitioner to prove her case without depending upon the weaknesses in the respondents/defendants case. It is also observed by learned trial Judge that respondents/defendants filed suit O.S. No.368 of 2010. (Though the said suit is filed by petitioner herself).

6. I have heard both sides.

7. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that orders passed by learned trial Judge are contrary to law which amounts to material irregularity and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. He would further submit that petitioner has given elaborate reason in his affidavit for seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner which erroneously dismissed by the learned trial Judge. He relied on the following precedent laws:-

I. T. Venkat Ramdev Vs G. Arjun Reddy and others1.

II. BS Kumar Vs B. Janardhan in C.R.P. No.761 of

2016 order dated 22.04.2019 of Telangana High Court.

He prays to allow the revision petition.

12013 (3) ALT 236

8. The learned