APHC010184092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1224/2025 Between:

1. G ORREPATI TEJANANDA REDDY, S/O. LATE APPIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.8-52, ZP HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, CHINAPARIMI (V), TSUNDUR (M), GUNTUR DISTRICT NOW BAPTLA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. K ALLAM VIMALA, W/o. Nagireddy, Aged about 54 years, R/o.Chinaparimi (V), Tsunduru Mandal, Guntur District, Now Bapatia District.

...RESPONDENT 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 to beg to present the Memorandum of grounds for Revision Petition aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.NO. 289 OF 2021 in O.S.No.53 of 2021 on the file of Principle Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Tenali dated 03.03.2025 for the following among other 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 to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.53 of 2021 on the file of Principle Civil Judge (Junior Division) Tenali pending the Civil Revision Petition before this Hon'ble Court and pass IA NO: 2 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 to vacate the interim Order of stay dated 09-05-2025 made in LA. No. 1 of 2025 in C.R.P. No. 1224 of 2025 on the file of this Hon' ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent:

1. N SRIRAM MURTHY The Court made the following:

ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.289 of

2025 in O.S.No.53 of 2021 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tenali, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.53 of 2021.

3. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed I.A.No.289 of 2025 under Order XXVI Rule 9 and Section 151 CPC duly praying the Court to appoint an advocate commissioner to visit the plaint schedule property and note down its physical features, including the existence of any paddy heap, the physical features of surrounding or nearby lands, existing crops and cart tracks, if any, and the existence of Manduru Donka on the eastern side of the defendant’s land and that there is no passage for the plaintiff except through the land of the defendant and to note such other features which are raised by the plaintiff. The said application has been opposed by the defendant/petitioner herein by filing counter contended that appointing an advocate commissioner amounts to collection of evidence and the same is impermissible under law, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the said application. The trial Court, after hearing parties, allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

4. Heard learned counsel representing Sri O.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Sri G.Krishna Kireeti, learned counsel representing Sri N.Sriram Murhty, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds of the revision and the contents of the counter filed before the Court below submitted that the Court below erroneously allowed the application filed by the respondent and thereby appointed an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features. She further contended that the Court below failed to see the purport of Order XXVI Rule 9 in right perspective that seeking appointment of advocate commissioner to note down the physical features is nothing but gathering of evidence. It is well settled principle of law that for gathering of evidence, the advocate commis