THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3431 OF 2025

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.07.2025 passed in I.A. No. 317 of 2025 in I.A. No. 816 of 2023 in O.S. No. 420 of 2023, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajanna Sircilla.

2. Heard Mr. B. Arjun Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt. B. Shirisha, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The revision petitioners, who are the defendants before the trial Court, filed a petition under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the suit schedule property and fix its boundaries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a local inspection and demarcate the property would assist the Court in resolving the dispute effectively and in determining the precise boundaries of the suit schedule land. He contends that the object of appointing a Commissioner is not to collect evidence on behalf of either party but to enable the Court to properly appreciate the physical features and extent of the property in controversy. However, the trial Court, without appreciating the necessity of such demarcation, dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage, holding that no valid reasons were made out for such appointment.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in rejecting the application, observing that appointment of a Commissioner at this stage would prejudice the respondent’s interests and delay the progress of the trial. It is further contended that the defendants may renew such a request after leading evidence, if necessary, and therefore no interference is warranted at this interlocutory stage.

6. I have perused the material available on record and considered the rival submissions advanced by both learned counsel.

7. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioners/defendants filed the present application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner at the stage of framing of issues, seeking demarcation of the suit schedule property and fixation of boundaries.

8. The trial Court, by the impugned order, declined the said request, primarily relying upon the judgment of this Court in Dammalapati Satyanarayana v. Datla Venkata Ramabhadra Raju, 2003 (4) ALD 675, wherein it was held that the appointment of a Commissioner is not intended to collect evidence for either party, and that the same should be permitted only where it is essential to assist the Court in resolving ambiguity regarding the property in dispute.

9. The trial Court also placed reliance on the recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bodiga Laxmaiah v. Ilavoni Chinna Jangaiah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3236, where it was reiterated that the power under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is discretionary, and that a Commissioner should not be appointed as a matter of routine, particularly when the evidence of the parties is yet to be concluded or where such appointment may prejudice one of the parties. The Supreme Court emphasized that such a request, if considered prematurely, could amount to delegating to the Commissioner the judicial function of determining possession or ownership, which is impermissible in law.

10. In the present case, as rightly observed by the trial Court, the petition seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was filed at a premature stage, i.e., before completion of the evidence. At such a juncture, the trial Court is justified in holding that the demarcation exercise could influence or prejudice the course of trial.

11. Having regard to the settled legal position and the stage of the proceedings, this Court is of the view that no infirmity or irregularity can be found in the order of the trial Court warranting interference u