ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order, dated 24.01.2025, passed in I.A.No.54 of 2019 in O.S.No.23 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Parigi, Vikarabad District, wherein the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to get the land in Sy.No.137 of Veerapur Village, surveyed with the help of Mandal Surveyor, was allowed.

2. Petitioner is defendant No.1, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.23 of 2009. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that initially the plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction and subsequently, the suit prayer was amended for declaration and recovery of possession. When defendant No.1 disputed the extent and boundaries, the plaintiff made an application before the Tahsildar, Kulkacherla seeking for demarcation of Sy.No.137 and when the Tahsildar refused to direct the Surveyor on the ground that defendant No.1 had objected for survey, the plaintiff filed W.P.No.36986 of 2017 before this Court and the said writ petition was subsequently withdrawn. As the Tahsildar did not come forward to survey the land, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.54 of 2019 seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner to get the subject land surveyed with the help of Mandal Surveyor. Defendant No.1, who is the revision petitioner herein, filed counter-affidavit stating that the plaintiff had created false sale deed vide document No.638 of 2008, dated 05.03.2008 mentioning false boundaries and basing on the said sale deed he has instituted a suit initially for perpetual injunction and pending adjudication of the said suit, having realised that the suit schedule property was not described properly, has filed an application seeking for amendment of the prayer and converting the injunction suit into declaration suit and also filed an application seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to get the land surveyed with the help of Mandal Surveyor. After considering the material on record, the trial Court allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by defendant No.1.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.1 would submit that the suit is filed in the year 2009 and the said suit is posted for recording the evidence of the defendants and the present petition is filed only for collection of evidence in support of the contentions raised in the plaint and therefore the application filed for appointment of an advocate-commissioner to conduct survey with the help of Mandal Surveyor at this stage is not maintainable.

5. On careful examination of the impugned order would reveal that the trial Court relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Haryana Waqf Board vs. Shanti Sarup and Others, [2008(8) SCC 671] has specifically observed that to resolve the disputes regarding the extent and boundaries and for adjudication of the suit for declaration and recovery of possession effectively the appointment of Advocate-Commissioner is necessary for the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. It is settled law that the Advocate Commissioner can be appointed only for identification of the property and its localisation and if any report submitted by the advocate commissioner, the same would not come in the way of the trial Court to decide the disputes among the parties. Further, the defendants in the suit are having a right to file their objections before the trial Court if they are aggrieved by the Advocate Commissioner’s report. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this C.R.P. granting liberty to the revision petitioner/defendant No.1 to file his objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner before the trial Court and in the event of objections, if any, filed