THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1400 of 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy in I.A.No.451 of 2025 in O.S.No.178 of 2019, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of conducting survey of the suit schedule property and fixation of boundaries, was dismissed. 2. Heard Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and Ms. Pratusha Boppana, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the petitioner filed the suit O.S.No.178 of 2019 for grant of perpetual injunction. In the said suit, he filed application vide I.A.No.451 of survey of the suit schedule property and fixation of boundaries with the aid of Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Sangareddy for adjudication of the suit and to dissolve the disputes between the parties and if the Advocate Commissioner is appointed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/defendants. He further submits that the Court below dismissed the said application on the ground that earlier, the respondent/defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed an application vide I.A.No.1653 of 2019 seeking appointment of the Advocate Commissioner, which was dismissed on 20.09.2024 and by virtue of dismissal of the said application, the present application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was also dismissed. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the Court below is cryptic in nature and the same is not sustainable under law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 submits that the nature of the relief sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.178 of 2019 being perpetual injunction, the present application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking to conduct survey of the suit schedule property and to fix the boundaries especially with the aid of the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records is not permissible under law and the Court below has rightly dismissed the said application.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and after perusal of the material on record, it reveals that the petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.178 of 2019 seeking perpetual injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. In the said suit, respondent/defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed an application vide I.A.No.1653 of 2019 seeking appointment of the Advocate Commissioner for conducting survey of the suit schedule property and fixation of the boundaries and the said application was dismissed on 20.09.2024 by giving cogent reasons and the said order has became final. Thereafter, on 20.03.2025, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application vide I.A.No.451 of 2025 seeking the very same relief which was sought by respondent/defendant Nos.1 to 3 except seeking additionally the aid of Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Sangareddy.

6. It is pertinent to mention that in A. Gopal Reddy v. R. Subramanyam Reddy, (2013) 4 ALD 347, this Court specifically held that the perpetual injunction is not permissible under law. In the case on

hand, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a simple suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. This Court does not find any ground in the Civil Revision Petition to exercise the supervisory powers conferred under 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

Date:01.08.2025

myk