`THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2189 of 2023

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 14-06-2023 passed in I.A.No.729 of 2022 in O.S.No.23 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal.

2. The petitioners herein are respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the underlying Interlocutory Application and defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit filed by the respondents herein as plaintiffs for declaration, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction.

3. In the aforesaid suit, the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the underlying Interlocutory Application under Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. for appointment of Advocate- Commissioner for noting the physical features of the suit schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ schedule properties in Sy.Nos.618 and 619 of Pudur village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District with the help of Official Surveyor i.e. Mandal Surveyor/District Surveyor.

4. The petitioners/respondents herein have filed counter- affidavit to the underlying Interlocutory Application claiming that there is no necessary to appoint Advocate-Commissioner for conducting survey of land in Sy.Nos.618 and 619 since, the petitioners/respondents’ land is situated in Sy.No.619 while respondents/defendants are claiming their property in Sy.No.618/C (618/part).

5. Petitioners/respondents further contend that since in the subject suit, issues were not framed, Advocate-Commissioner cannot be appointed more so, when the respondents herein have not stated that there is boundary dispute between the land in Sy.Nos.618 and 619.

6. Petitioners/respondents herein further contended by the counter-affidavit that the respondents herein have filed the underlying Interlocutory Application after the trial Court having reserved the Interlocutory Applications filed by the respondents for grant of injunction.

7. By contending as above, the petitioners/respondents have sought for dismissal of the underlying Interlocutory Application. 8. The trial Court, considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, had allowed the underlying Interlocutory Application to conduct local investigation by fixing the boundaries in furtherance of survey to be conducted by taking assistance of Mandal Surveyor over the property purchased by the respondents/petitioners vide Doc.No.843/2009 dated 04-03-2009, (ii) directing the Advocate- Commissioner to note down the physical features in Sy.No.618 to the extent of the land as was purchased by the respondents/petitioners; and (iii) directing the Advocate- Commissioner to enquire with the Revenue and other required Government Officials and to collect the documentary proof with regard to alleged extension of road which would be conducive in making survey and fixing boundaries.

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial Court, the petitioners/respondents had filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record.

11. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the Revision petitioners that since the trial Court had reserved the Interlocutory Applications filed by the respondents herein for grant of injunction after hearing the parties, the trial Court ought not to have appointed the Advocate-Commissioner in the underlying Interlocutory Application.

12. It is also further contended that since the issues are not framed in the subject suit filed by the respondents herein as plaintiffs, the trial Court had erred in appointing Advocate- Commissioner as the same would amount to Court assisting the respondents/plaintiffs to collect evidence to support their case.

13. By contending as above, petitioners sought for setting aside the order of the trial Court in appointing the Advocate-

Commissioner.

14. I have taken note of the contentions urged.

15. Firstly, it is to be noted that appointment of