ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the 1 st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi in

I.A.No.1064/2017 in O.S.34/2017.

2. Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the impugned order is illegal or irregular in appointing a Court Commissioner twice, occasioning failure of Justice in the context of facts and circumstances of O.S.34 of 2017 available before learned Ist Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi?

3. POINT :-

Sole plaintiff filed O.S.34 of 2017 against four defendants and prayed for declaring the title to the plaint B-schedule property of the plaintiff consequently and directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the plaint B- Schedule property, which is part and parcel of plaint A- schedule property to the plaintiff

duly removing the unauthorized concrete cellar wall made therein, failing which the same may be done through process of law and grant mandatory injunction to remove the unauthorized concrete cell wall raised in the plaint ‘B’ schedule property, which is part and parcel of plaint A-schedule property by the defendants illegally and high handedly and for costs of the suit.

4. Plaint disclosed plot No.47 and its Northern adjoining plot No.46 as Items 1 and 2 respectively of schedule ‘A’. Boundaries to them indicate that for plot No.47 adjoining east and for plot No.46 adjoining north the site of defendants exist. Plaintiff claims to have acquired his title under registered sale deeds of the years 2005 and 2013 respectively over those two plots of land. The allegation is that the defendants encroached into his A schedule property in two feet width and sixty feet length and embarked upon making constructions in that. This alleged encroached extents of land are shown as B schedule in the plaint and depicted as CDEF in a rough sketch filed with the plaint.

5. Defendants denied the correctness of those assertions and stated in their written statement about making constructions in their own site and title over plot No.46 and about pendency of O.S.42 of 2017 filed against this plaintiff by Defendant Nos.1 and 3 herein. They further pleaded that plaint A schedule itself is not capable of being identified and located and about non maintainability of suit for omitting to seek declaration of title over plaint A schedule property and sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. Thus plaintiff asserts identifiable property and its encroachment on ground and defendants deny it. It was in such circumstances plaintiff filed I.A. 81 of 2017 and sought for appointment of Court Commissioner to visit the disputed property, take note of physical features, draw a sketch map, take photographs. After due hearing the said I.A.81/2017 was allowed. Learned Advocate Commissioner obtained works memos from both sides, went with Mandal Surveryor and took photographs and filed a preliminary report before the court stating that warrant could not be executed since Mandal Surveyor reported his inability to assist stating that the disputed property is in S.No.37/3 of Akkrampalli Village and in that survey number total extent is Ac.1.64 cents and Plot

No.46 could not be located in revenue records because of the fact that sub-divisions are not available in the records and there is no approved layout. Mentioning these and other aspects, the learned Advocate Commissioner sought for further directions from the Court whether to proceed with execution of warrant by referring to the sale deeds of both sides and by using un-approved lay out furnished by plaintiff. Thus the Advocate Commissioner reported to the Court that he did not execute the warrant and reported the causes that inhibited execution of warrant and he retained the warrant and sought for instructions from the Court. It is not clear from the