ORDER:

Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 23.04.2024 in I.A.No.241 of 2023 in I.A. No. 1166 of 2022 in O.S.No.394 of 2022 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy, the defendants have filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.394 of 2022 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy for perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. Apart from the suit, the plaintiffs have also filed I.A.No.1166 of 2023 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants have filed I.A.No.241 of 2023 by invoking Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appoint Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of suit land in Sy.No.159/UU/1 and 160/A/1 admeasuring Ac.3.35 guntas and Ac.0.19 guntas respectively situated at Ippahad Village, Urukonda Mandal, Nagarkurool and their land in Sy.No.157 situated in the same surroundings. However, the learned Trial Court Judge has dismissed the said petition on the ground that appointment of Advocate Commissioner would amount to collection of evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order.

3. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and perused the record.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has submitted a memo, wherein it was stated that in compliance with the orders of this Court dated 14.06.2024 and 21.06.2024, they have sent personal notices to the plaintiffs by registered post to the address mentioned in the plaint, however, the plaintiffs got the said notices returned with postal endorsement that “LEFT” and “Insufficient Address” respectively. It is further submitted that notice was sent to the counsel appearing for the plaintiffs before the trial Court and as per the postal track report, the said notice was served on the counsel for the plaintiffs by name Venkat Goud before the trial Court. When a notice sent to the address mentioned in the cause title and the same has been returned as “left”, it is deemed to be a proper service as per the provisions of General Clauses Act. Furthermore, as stated supra, notice was also sent to the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs before the trial Court. Hence, the arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs are treated as ‘nil’.

5. The contention of the defendants is that their land in Sy.No.157 and the suit land in Sy.No.160 are abutting to each other and the land of defendants in Sy.No.157 is existing towards southern side of the plaintiffs in sy.No.160. It is further contended that the plaintiffs have filed false sketch map along with the plaint suppressing real facts showing existence of road in the suit land even though it is not existing in the suit survey numbers with an intention to grab the northern part of defendants land in Sy.No.157. It is further contention of the defendants that on the application of the defendants, the Deputy Inspector of the Survey, Revenue Divisional Office, Kalwakurthy fixed the boundaries in respect of the suit land and also in respect of lands of the defendants in Sy.No.157 and as per the said survey the road is not existing towards southern side of the suit land as shown in the plaint. Thus, as per the contention of the defendants, the said road which is passing through the land of the defendants is dividing the land into two pieces and the plaintiffs based on the false sketch map are trying to occupy Ac.0.20 guntas of land towards north-west part. Hence, the intention of the defendants intended is to appoint an Advocate Commissioner so as to note down the physical features of suit land as well as the land of the defendants and