##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4592 OF 2025

Date: 19.12.2025

Between:

Md.Kaleemul Hasan

..Petitioner

And

Jinkala Vimala and

three others

..Respondents

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/

plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved

by the order, dated 24.10.2025, passed in I.A.No.97 of 2025 in

O.S.No.95 of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mulugu,

wherein and whereunder the application filed under Order XXVI

Rule 9 of C.P.C., seeking appointment of an Advocate-

Commissioner to measure the plaint schedule property as well as

the adjoining property of respondent/defendant No.2, was

dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, who is the

petitioner herein, filed O.S.No.95 of 2022 (old No.178 of 2018 on

the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal) seeking

2

EVV, J

Crp_4592_2025

permanent injunction against the respondents, their agents,

servants, workmen and assignees from interfering or invading the

suit land and along with the said suit, he also filed I.A.No.275 of

2018 seeking for grant of ad interim injunction. The learned II

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, vide order, dated

29.03.2018 in I.A.No.275 of 2018, has granted ad interim

injunction directing the respondents/defendants not to interfere

with the petition schedule property till filing of the counter and the

said interim order is being extended from time to time. While

things stood thus, taking advantage of the petitioner’s absence,

respondent No.2 herein has illegally occupied his land and

constructed a house therein. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner

filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of C.P.C. against

respondent No.2 for committing breach of the injunction order. As

respondent No.2 has constructed a house by occupying the

petitioner’s land, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application

seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to measure

the plaint schedule property as well as the adjoining property of

respondent No.2.

3

EVV, J

Crp_4592_2025

3. To the said petition, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a

counter stating that the disputed fact cannot be referred to

Commissioner and measuring the land is nothing but an attempt

to create third party evidence in favour of the petitioner. It is

further stated that respondent No.2 had constructed the house

after obtaining necessary permission and by suppressing all the

material facts, the petitioner filed the aforesaid petition. The

petitioner did not file any document to prove his ownership or

possession of the alleged encroached area. Therefore, the

appointment of advocate-commissioner is not necessary.

4. After considering the rival submissions made, the trial Court

has dismissed the said I.A. Challenging the same, the present

Civil Revision Petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri Rahul Gaikward, learned counsel representing Mr.

Iiyas Shareef, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the

material placed on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

trial Court erred in observing at paragraph No.11 of the impugned

order that “one cannot be granted injunction to protect his

4

EVV, J

Crp_4592_2025

possession which he does not have”. This finding amounts to a

pre-trial of decree by deciding the final entitlement of the plaintiff

at the interlocutory stage of appointing an Advocate Commissioner

and the learned trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction. The

purpose of the commission is mere identification of the physical

features of the property and not to adjudicate the final relief of

injunction and therefore, prayed to allow this Civil Revision

Petition.

7. The trial Court at para Nos.9 and 11 observed as under:-

“ 9. The petitioner submitted that during the pendency

of the suit and after temporary injunction, the

respondent/defendant No.2 had encroached the above

said part of suit land and therefore filed Order XXXIX Rule

2-A of