ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial Court dated 05.12.2022 in IA.No.114 of 2022 in OS.No.81 of 2013, wherein, the petition is filed under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘C.P.C.’) praying the Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for re-fixing of boundaries basing on the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No.153 of 2002 in OS.No.274 of 2002 by way of bifurcation of Sy.Nos.140 and 142 for better clarification.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petition is filed by the plaintiff for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and the suit is filed for perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant from entering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property stating that he is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property i.e., house plot bearing No.1089.06 Sq.yrds. The respondent filed a written statement stating that he had purchased the plot Nos.1 and 22 in Sy.No.142 to an extent of Ac.300 Sq.yrds each through registered documents with the specific boundaries. The vendors of the defendant by name P.Babu Rao and M.Krishnaiah have purchased the same through their respective vendors and in turn the vendors purchased from Khammam District Telangana Non Gazetted Officers Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., The petitioner further submitted that it was mentioned in written statement that the vendors of the defendant has filed suit against TNGO before the Khammam Court and the same was dismissed on 28-07-2006. In the said suit, there was an IA.No.153 of 2002, wherein, with the help of Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records conducted survey and boundaries of defendant were mentioned and of the society also fixed stone pillars and the same is part and parcel of proceedings and the said document was marked in this Court for the purpose of proper adjudication of the matter. Basing on the said I.A. Commissioner report, the petitioner prays this Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner.

3. Respondent filed a counter in the trial Court opposing the petition and stated that there is no reason mentioned by the petitioner, it is nothing but collecting evidence from the Court and there is no document filed by the petitioner to prove that the Advocate Commissioner report was filed in OS.No.274 of 2002 basing on which the present suit schedule property is to be re-fixed, hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

4. The trial Court after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition stating that there is no proper reason assigned by the petitioner to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to re-fix the boundaries and the Court could not ascertain whether the facts and circumstances in OS.No.274 of 2002 and parties are one and same or not. Mere filing the report in IA.No.153 of 2002 does not specify any aspect and also observed that the suit is for perpetual injunction, re-fixation of boundaries would cause hindrance to parties.

5. Aggrieved by the said observation, the present petition is filed by the petitioner stating that the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition holding that it is maintainable in law, because the respondent has categorically pleaded in his written statement and also mentioned in his chief examination as DW.1 and also cross-examined on behalf of the previous suit in OS.No.274 of 2002. The trial Court ought to have allowed the petition to re-fix the boundaries by appointing an Advocate Commissioner, since there is ambiguity regarding the property. The trial Court ought to have perused the written statement and the deposition of the respondent (DW.1) to ascertain the facts and circumstances of the previous suit and present suit, as such, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by appointing an Advocate Commissioner.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as there is ambiguity in the boundaries of the suit