ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the unsuccessful plaintiff is directed against the order, dated 10.10.2018, of the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District, passed in I.A.No.616 of 2018 in O.S.No.158 of 2011.

2. Heard Mr. K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Mr. Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. Perused the order impugned in the revision.

3. The facts that lead to filing of this revision by the plaintiff, in brief, are as follows:

The total extent of land in R.S.No.202/3 of Parimpudi village is Ac.0.49 cents. Mane Lingamma had Ac.0.30 cents on the north of which, there are houses of Manda Veera Brahmam, Nallajerla Satyanarayana and Manda Vijayalaxmi in an extent of Ac.0.19 cents. On the southern side of R.S.No.202/3, there is a saw mill. Out of the extent of Ac.0.49 cents in R.S.No.202/3, Manda Lingamma and her family members sold an extent of Ac.0.30 cents on 22.05.2006 to the defendant, his wife, sister-in-law and to Geda Veeraraju under various sale deeds and delivered possession of the property. The defendant constructed two storied building with a shopping complex. The plaintiff obtained a sale deed dated 14.06.2006. The suit in O.S.No.143 of 2010 filed by the defendant was dismissed against which an appeal in A.S.No.62 of 2016 was filed on the file of IX Additional District Judge, Kovvur. In the appeal, in I.A.No.1271 of 2016, Sri Ch. Naga Kumar, Advocate, Bar Association, Kovvur, appointed as the Commissioner, filed report with plans, by localizing the schedule property as per the sale deeds executed by the vendors of the defendant. The report of the Commissioner clearly establishes that there is no site available on ground as claimed by the plaintiff, after the vendors of the defendant sold the land in R.S.No.202/3 under five sale deeds, dated 22.05.2006 referred to supra. On an application of the defendant, on contest, the trial Court directed issuance of summons to the Commissioner to give evidence as a witness on behalf of the defendant in O.S.No.158 of 2011. Therefore, the aggrieved plaintiff filed this Civil Revision Petition. 4. The averments in the counter affidavit filed by the plaintiff, in brief, are as follows:

The plaintiff is in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as an absolute owner. The Commissioner appointed in A.S.No.62 of 2016 was directed to measure the land, basing on the possession and enjoyment of the parties. But, the Commissioner, without following the documents, measured the site and filed his report. The plaintiff filed objections to the report. The evidence of the Commissioner is not required in the present suit and therefore, the Commissioner need not be summoned to give evidence. The earlier suit in O.S.No.143 of 2010 was filed by the defendant for permanent injunction and the present suit is for declaration and for consequential injunction. Both parties to the suit have to adduce evidence. If the schedule property is the property of the defendant, he would have filed the documents. The rights and title of the parties will be decided basing on the documentary evidence and the oral evidence to be adduced by both side parties, but not on the basis of the report of the Commissioner. On the objections filed by the plaintiff to the report of the Commissioner, since enquiry is pending, the said report is not admissible in evidence and is not helpful to decide the lis.

The present petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. As already noted, by the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the petition.

6. The revision petitioner while reiterating his pleaded case, challenged the impugned order as follows:

The Court below failed to assign proper reasons in allowing the application. The report of the Commissioner was not finalized and therefore, the same cannot be looked into and as