HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1590 OF 2025

ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr. Neeli Rishi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff and Mr. K. Rajashekar, learned counsel representing Ms.

Swathi Menon P., learned counsel for the respondent - defendant.

2. This revision is filed under Section - 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in I.A. No.514 of 2023 in O.S. No.1247 of 2022.

3. The petitioner herein is plaintiff. He filed the aforesaid suit, O.S. No.1247 of 2022, for declaration, recovery of possession and for perpetual injunction against the respondent - defendant. The petitioner herein has also filed an Interlocutory Application seeking temporary injunction and the same is pending. There is no interim injunction as of now.

4. According to both learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent, the suit is at the stage of Section - 89 of C.P.C. At that stage, the petitioner herein had filed I.A. No.514 of 2023 in O.S.No.1247 of 2022 under Order - XXVI, Rule - 9 of CPC to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to measure the area of the petitioner - plaintiff and the respondent - defendant as per sale deed bearing document No.1664 of 1999, dated 19.04.1999 on the following grounds:

(i) The respondent illegally occupied the suit schedule area on which the petitioner has easementary rights.

(ii) In the written statement, the respondent stated that she did not occupy the suit land and that the said area belongs to her.

5. The respondent - defendant opposed the said application by filing counter contending as follows:

(i) The petitioner has to establish his suit claim independently by adducing evidence.

(ii) If Advocate-Commissioner is appointed at this stage, it amounts to collection of evidence.

6. Vide impugned order dated 18.03.2025, the trial Court dismissed the said application holding that the plaintiff has to prove his case by adducing evidence, both oral and documentary and at this stage if the request made by the petitioner to appoint an advocate commissioner is accepted, it amounts to collection of evidence.

7. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that at any stage the plaintiff can file an application under Order - XXVI, Rule - 9 of CPC to appoint an advocate commissioner. The plaintiff is only seeking to note down the physical features and to measure the area of plaintiff and the defendant as per the documents through Mandal Surveyor and also descriptive particulars of the suit area by identifying the same for immense help in better adjudication. Without considering the said aspects, vide impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the said application erroneously. He has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by this Court in Jajula Koteshwar Rao v. Ravulapalli Masthan Rao, 1. 2015 (6) ALD 483 and Donadulu Uma Devi v. Girika Katamaiah @ Basaiah, 2. 2013 (2) ALD 86

8. Whereas, Mr. K. Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would contend that the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner is premature, and in the written statement, the respondent has specifically mentioned that the petitioner has sold the suit schedule property to the respondent under an unregistered agreement of sale, dated 01.12.2000 and he has also delivered

possession of the same to the respondent. She is in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has to prove his case by adducing evidence, both oral and documentary. He cannot seek appointment of advocate commissioner at this stage. On consideration of the said aspects only, the trial Court dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner vide impugned order. There is no error in it. He placed reliance on the judgments in Chandrasekaran v. V. Doss Naidu, 3. 2005 LawSuit (Mad) 756 Yenugonda Bal Reddy v. Manemma, 4. (2011) 3 ALT 232, Thalla Sulochana v. Thalla Issac, 5. (201