APHC010402202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1963/2025 Between:

1. AVVARU SANKARA RAO, S/O RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O D.NO.76-10/1-16-2, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA.

...PETITIONER AND

1. ANNAPUREDDY PADMAVATHI, W/O NUKALA VIJAYA SANKAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O SUNSHINE AVENUE, PRAGATHI NAGAR, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD.

2. GOGULAPATI MADHAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O LAWYERS' STREET, VINUKONDA, PALNADU DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased toaggrieved by the order dated 17.3.2025 passed in I.A.No. 47 of

2024 in O.S.No. 14 of 2015 by the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 14 of 2015 by the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda, pending disposal of the CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOCHIRI RAJA SHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. NUTHALAPATI MOHAN RESERVED ON 20.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON 12.03.2026 UPLOADED ON 12.03.2026.

ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the orders dated 17.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.47 of 2024 in O.S.No.14 of 2015 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda.

2. The Civil Revision Petitioner is the petitioner/defendant no.1, respondent no.1 is respondent no.1/ plaintiff and respondent no.2 is the respondent no.2/defendant no.2 in I.A.No.47 of 2024 in O.S.No.14 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda.

3. In the suit filed by respondent no.1/plaintiff for permanent injunction vide O.S.No.14 of 2015, the defendant no.1 therein filed I.A.No.47 of 2024 under Order-26, Rule-9 CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features in and around the suit schedule property. The respondent no.1/plaintiff resisted the same by filing counter contending that the petition has been filed after long gap of 10 years and has been filed without assigning any sufficient reason and further the issue involved in the suit is whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit or not at the time of filing of the same, which has duly been proved by the plaintiff. The petition is devoid of merits and the same has been filed only to drag on the proceedings.

4. The learned trial Judge dismissed the petition holding that the respondent who contends that he has been in possession of the property has to prove the same by adducing legally acceptable evidence and for the said purpose an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed and that too filing such a petition after lapse of 10 years is only to drag on the proceedings.

5. The said dismissal order is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

6. Heard Sri Kochiri Raja Shekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Nuthalapati Mohan, learned counsel for respondent no.1/plaintiff.

7. Sri Kochiri Raja Shekar, learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the trial Court and the grounds of Civil Revision Petition would contend that since P.W.1 denied the suggestions made by the defendant during his cross- examination, appointment of an Advocate commissioner to note the physical features of the plaint schedule property is very much essential, which would aid the court in coming to the just conclusion while adjudicating the matter. He would further contend that the cross-examination evidence of P.W.1 necessitates appointment of Advocate commissioner and therefore, there is no delay in filing the petition, however the lower court in erroneous view of the matter came to a wrong conclusion that purpose