IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2172 OF 2016 Date: 28.11.2025 Between:

Botike Erra Jampaiah …Petitioner AND Botike Kattaiah …Respondent

ORDER:

Heard Sri G.Anandam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondents, though notices were served on the respondent and also on the counsel appearing for the respondents before the trial Court.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order I.A.No.4 of 2016 in I.A.No.127 of 2015 in O.S.No.68 of 2015 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, at Narsampet, Warangal District, dated 19.02.2016. wherein, the petitioner herein, who is defendant in the suit bearing O.S.NO.68 of 2015, filed I.A.No.4 of 2016 in I.A.No.127 of 2015 under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as petitioner/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant as before the trial Court.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed suit against the respondent seeking permanent injunction against the respondent in respect of the land admeasuring 1-13 guntas in Sy.No.25-/7 of Duggondi Village.

4. Pending suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the I.A.

seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to locate the suit land and the land claimed by the respondent/defendant admeasuring Ac.0-36 guntas to fix the boundaries with the help of Surveyor of land Records.

5. The said petition was contested by the respondent/defendant who is revision petitioner herein contended that the said petition was filed only to drag the I.A. and further contended that the plaintiff therein who is petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondent and the petitioner/plaintiff is no way concerned with the Suit Schedule Property, but he filed a false suit.

6. He also contended that the plaintiff is in possession of the Suit Schedule Property but no document has been filed to show that the plaintiff is in possession of Suit Schedule Property as on the date of filing of suit of the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and is not certain about boundaries, extents and also adjacent property and now cannot be entrusted to the Advocate Commissioner by this Court and the same is impermissible under law. It is averred that no Advocate Commissioner can be appointed for question of evidence and he further relied on the Judgment reported in 2015 (2) ALD 207 and finally contended that the petitioner has to collect and place his evidence purely basing on his own efforts and cannot take the help of this Court and which amounts to collection of evidence.

7. The said application was heard and the learned Judge allowed the application appointing the Advocate Commissioner on the ground that such appointment is for the purpose of identity of property and will be helpful to both the parties and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent even though if an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and no harm or loss will be caused to either of the parties due to such exercise. Though sometime would be consumed by the Advocate Commissioner for completing the task.

8. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed contending that the learned judge ought not to have appointed the Advocate Commissioner and allowed the application and further averred that in the suit for simple injunction, no Advocate Ccommissioner can be appointed. The respondent is burdened entirely to identify the plaint schedule property and the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint schedule, but the same is not open as the allowing of application is not vested in data and the finding that no prejudice could be caused to the revision petitioner even on appointment of Advocate Commissioner as sought for by the respondent is erroneous. The revision petitioner prayed that the revision be