THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1751 of 2025

ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 07.04.2025 passed in

I.A.No.576 of 2025 in O.S.No.13 of 2014 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Bellampalli, the present

Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri Gudi Madhusudan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri V. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for

respondents. Perused the record.

3. The petitioners herein are plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 to 9 in I.A.No.567 of 2025. Respondent No.1 herein is defendant No.2/petitioner in I.A.No.576 of 2025 in O.S.No.13 of 2014 on the file of the learned Junior Civil

Judge at Bellampalli.

4. I.A.No.576 of 2025 in O.S.No.13 of 2014 is filed by the petitioner / defendant No.2 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC with a prayer for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to do local investigation and localize the suit schedule property for making survey and determination of the boundaries and extent of suit schedule property with the assistance of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Mancherial or Mandal Surveyor, Bellampally and to submit report with full details of survey number of just decision of the case in the interest of justice. The facts in brief as stated in I.A.No.576 of 2025 are that:

The plaintiffs-R-1 to R-9 have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.2/ petitioner and defendant No.1/R-10 in possession of plaintiffs over suit land admeasuring 2 acres in Sy.No.9/A situated at Boyapally village, Tandur mandal, submitting that the said land is a Government P.P. Land and number of assignments were made and the provisional list was also prepared to whom the survey numbers were assigned. In the said provisional list the name of the plaintiff was given Sy.No.9/50 in Sy.No.147. The said Government land was assigned to 173 persons and their survey numbers and sub division numbers were also given along with the lands assigned to that persons. In the Patta Certificate filed by the plaintiff, the boundaries, were not mentioned to the land assigned to the plaintiff and sub division number is also not mentioned either in the Final Patta Certificate or in the Title Deed pass book or pattedar pass book. However, the boundaries given by the plaintiff to her land along with the plaint pertains to Sy.No.29/A, which belongs to one Mr.Maganti Suresh, S/o.Late Maganti Ramchander Rao, R/o.Bellampally and as per the boundaries given by the plaintiff towards Western land there is land of Mr.Maganti Subba Rao, who is elder brother of Mr.Maganti Suresh. It is submitted that the boundaries given by the plaintiff pertaining to Sy.No.29/A admeasuring Ac.2-69 cents belongs to Mr.Maganti Suresh, who is petitioner’s junior paternal uncle and the said Mr.Maganti Suresh is the pattedar of the suit schedule land and that the plaintiff has no right against the said land as it was never assigned to the plaintiff by Government and that as per the boundaries given by the plaintiff along with her plaint are not tallying and that the said fact was suppressed by giving wrong boundaries in the suit depriving the petitioner’s right and his uncle from enjoying the suit schedule land peacefully and unless Advocate Commissioner is appointed to investigate about the present possession of the suit schedule property the real facts will not be disclosed. Counter has been filed by respondents/ plaintiffs denying appointment of Advocate Commissioner and questioned the very maintainability of the Application and prayed to dismiss the said application.

5. The trial Court relying upon the orders passed in Jammi Venkata Krishna Rao and others v. Jammi Venkata Hanuma Ravindranath, 2015 (5) ALT 14 and K. Davanand and another v. P. Sampath Kumar, 2015 (4) ALT 560, observed that whenever there is a dispute regarding boundaries or physical features of the property and in such cases the facts have to be physically viewed because the recitals of the docu