HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE SAMBASI VA RAO NAI DU C.R.P.NO.2662 of 2022

JUDGMENT :

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by the petitioners in IA.No.124 of 2022 and plaintiffs in OS.No.486 of 2016 on the file of V Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy. Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 04-11-2022 in IA.No.124 of 2022, where under their request for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to survey the suit schedule property with the help of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records was dismissed by the trial Court, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this Civil Revision on the following grounds.

2. The Court below dismissed their petition vide IA.No.124 of 2022 without considering their pleadings, record, documents placed before the Court. The trial Court committed an error in passing the impugned order without considering the nature of claim made by the petitioners in the original suit and the Court below committed an error without appreciating their contention that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to survey the suit schedule property will resolve the issue in adjudicating the case. The Court below failed to consider that the petitioners were able to establish their title and possession based on registered sale deed and did not consider the claim of petitioners that respondents/defendants deliberately disputed the identity of the suit schedule property which was clearly demonstrated by the petitioners before the Court below.

3. The petitioners have further contended that the Court below ought to have considered that the respondents were interfering with the suit schedule property without any right, title and disputed the identity of the property, thereby, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for survey of the property is quite necessary and it will resolve the issues involved in the suit. They have also claimed that the Court below passed the impugned order without assigning any reasons and failed to appreciate the necessity of appointment of an Advocate under Article 26 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘C.P.C’.) The petitioners have claimed that such an appointment of an Advocate for survey of the property with the help of Surveyor would not amount to collection of evidence only to assist the Court to come to a correct conclusion. Therefore, the dismissal of the petition is liable to be set aside, as such, they prayed for setting aside the order and for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to survey ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties with the help of Surveyor in Survey and Land Records.

4. As could be seen from the impugned order dated

04-11-2022, the petition filed by the petitioners herein under Article 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct survey of suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties with the help of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records was dismissed by the Court below. While filing the above referred Interlocutory Application, the 4^th petitioner/plaintiff No.4 filed his affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of other petitioners and submitted that they filed the main suit for perpetual injunction in respect of suit ‘A’ & ‘B’ schedule properties. The respondents/ defendants filed their written statements with false allegations and the matter was pending before the trial Court for further cross-examination of PW.1. The petitioners have claimed that during the pendency of the suit, in view of the death of 3^rd plaintiff and defendant No.3, the respective legal representatives of plaintiff No.3 and defendant No.3 were brought on record. The respondents/defendants have disputed the boundaries shown by the petitioners herein to ‘A’ & ‘B’ schedule properties. Therefore, there is a necessity to have correct identification of the property.

The petitioners having claimed absolute ownership and possession on the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deeds and based on mutation proceedings further sta