THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1192 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri A. Aravind Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the respondent.

Perused the entire record.

2. This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2024 in I.A.No.50 of 2024 in I.A.No.365 of 2022 in O.S.No.833 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri at Medchal, (‘trial Court’), wherein an application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. to appoint an Advocate Commissioner has been allowed to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property by making local inspection.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed suit for declaration and recovery of possession against the revision petitioner/defendant with respect to the suit schedule property consisting of open land admeasuring Ac.0-36 guntas in Sy.Nos.435/Part & 464/Part of Bowrampet Village and Gram Panchayat, Qutbullapur Mandal now Gandi Maisamma Mandal, Ranga Reddy District now Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The said land is bounded by land in Sy.No.472 in North, by land of Suryodaya Homes Private Limited in South, by land belonging to V. Narayana Raju on East and by land in part of Sy.No.464 and 435 in West. The respondent claims to be the owner and possessor of the above said land having purchased the same under registered sale deed from the erstwhile owner. He was in peaceful possession and while things thus stood, the revision petitioner in the year 2000 approached respondent stating that they being largest firm are intending to construct apartments and demanded to sell the suit schedule property and that they are ready to purchase the same at any cost. The respondent did not agree to sell suit schedule property as he has no need to alienate the same. At that time, the revision petitioner filed application before the authorities of HMDA seeking layout plan and the respondent submitted an objection letter dated 08.10.2020, not to approve and release the layout because the suit schedule property is also included in their requisition. The HMDA declined to approve the layout as there was dispute about possession. Thereafter, the revision petitioner started visiting the respondent once in a fortnight pressurizing him to alienate the suit schedule property and on 21.02.2022, the respondent erected a fencing with tin sheets encircling his land by encroaching the suit schedule property, on raising objection and request to remove the same, the revision petitioner threatened the respondent with help of his subordinates and labour men. In that context, a criminal case is registered before Police Station Dundigal with a request to take necessary action. Due to non- action of the police, the respondent filed the present suit for declaration of his ownership, recovery of possession and for costs. In the said suit, he filed I.A.No.365 of 2022 seeking temporary injunction as the revision petitioner is raising constructions in the suit schedule property. In the said petition, the I.A. under revision is filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and the same was allowed by way of impugned order with a direction to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property by making local inspection. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.

4. In the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the survey numbers claimed by the revision petitioner and the survey numbers claimed by the respondent are different except Sy.No.464, which is overlapping. The impugned order is passed to note down the physical features of the property by failing to understand that the revision petitioner is also holding property in the said survey number within specific boundaries. The impugned order has reference of the admission of the revision petitioner about making construction as the interim injunction order obtained by the res