Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 67325

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, J
Reddyshetty Srihari – Appellant
Versus
Surineni Chakradhar Rao – Respondent
CRP.No.2226 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Thallapally Rajasekhar
For the Respondents: Y.Prasanna Kumar

The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to identify land boundaries in an injunction suit at the initial stage is impermissible if it functions as a mechanism for the plaintiff to collect evidence to support a case of possession where no such case has been prima facie established.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 26 Rule 9 - Appointment of Advocate Commissioner - Purpose and Timing - Application for appointment of Commissioner to identify land boundaries at the threshold of a suit for permanent injunction, particularly when the identity and possession of the property are in dispute, amounts to gathering evidence for the plaintiff - Such power is to be exercised only when the court is unable to settle central controversies after evidence is adduced. (Paras 18.1, 18.3, 18.5, 26.5)

(B) Article 227 of the Constitution - Jurisdiction of High Court - Supervisory jurisdiction is exercised to correct grave injustice arising from perverse orders or failure to exercise jurisdiction - Appointment of Commissioner for 'identification' rather than 'demarcation' where titles are unclear and boundaries are absent in primary documents constitutes a jurisdictional error. (Paras 8, 26.4, 27)

Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming title via an unregistered document without defined boundaries, while the petitioners asserted ownership of the land through registered sale deeds. The trial court permitted the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to identify the property. The petitioners challenged this, arguing that the application was premature and aimed at collecting evidence to establish the plaintiff's case on possession and identity, which were previously held to be unproven in interim injunction proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the trial court failed to appreciate that the plaintiff must prove physical possession through evidence first. The request for 'identification' of the property essentially sought to have the Commissioner create a case for the plaintiff where the documents relied upon were ambiguous and contained no boundaries. The court noted that identifying property with undefined boundaries by a Commissioner is not a legitimate exercise of powers under the Civil Procedure Code.

Issues: Whether the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in an injunction suit for the purpose of identifying property boundaries, before the commencement of evidence, is legally permissible or constitutes the collection of evidence for a party.

Ratio Decidendi: An Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to 'identify' or create boundaries for a property in an injunction suit if the party has not established a prima facie case with evidence, as such an act facilitates the gathering of evidence rather than aiding the court in clarifying existing material.

Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed. Order of the trial court set aside.

Table of Content
1. factual context regarding the parties' dispute over land boundaries and ownership. (Para 1 , 2 , 9 , 10)
2. scope of high court interference and the threshold for appointing an advocate commissioner. (Para 8)
3. assessment of evidence and discrepancies in the plaintiff's claim of title and possession. (Para 11 , 13)

Gist :

Head Note :

Cases referred:

1. 2013 (4) ALD 347

2. 2006 (4) ALD 675

3. (2015) 2 ALD 206

4. 2022 SCC OnLine TS 3099

5. 2023 6 ALD 614

6. 2023 SCC OnLine TS 2757

7. 2023 SCC OnLine TS 706

8. 2023 1 ALD 165

9. (2008) 8 SCC 671

10. CRP No.2567 of 2022 dated 16.04.2024 of the High Court for the State of Telangana

11. CRP Nos.1111 and 1112 of 2020 dated 22.01.2024 of the High Court for the State of Telangana

12. 2013 SCC OnLine AP 625

13. 2020 SCC OnLine TS 706

14. MANU/MH/0838/2014

15. 2023 (6) ALD 637 (TS)

1. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No

ORDER

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, at Medak in I.A.No.292 of 2022 in OS No.17 of 2023 (Old Suit No.54 of 2021), dated 19.06.2025.

2. Petitioners are the respondents, and the respondent is the petitioner in I.A.No.292 of 2022 filed under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for identification of the suit schedule land i.e., Sy.No.125/E3 situated at Gangapur Village of Haveli, Ghanpur Mandal, Medak District.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners-respondents submits that the Court below failed to appreciate the pleadings of the plaint, petition and written statement and misinterpreted the orders of the High Court in CRP No.2136 of 2022. Appointment of Advocate Commissioner to identify the suit schedule property amounts to collection of evidence and the respondent-petitioner purchased the land by way of simple sale deed, which does not disclose any boundaries to the property, the said document is regularised after a period of 12 years, and the appointment of Advocate Commissioner petition is a premature one.

3.2. Respondent-petitioner is not in possession of the property and identification of the property under Sada bainama is in question. It is pertinent to mention that injunction petition filed by the respondent-petitioner in I.A.No.252 of 2021 seeking ad interim injunction was dismissed on the ground that there is no prima facie case and the respondent-petitioner has carried the matter in Appeal vide CMA.No.1 of 2022 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Medak, the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 10.11.2021, against which the respondent-petitioner has preferred CRP No.2136 of 2022 before the High Court which also came to be dismissed on 21.11.2022. The Court below ought to have discussed the pleadings of the parties while deciding the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner instead thereof, has reproduced the part of pleadings and stated that ascertaining the boundaries of the suit land is necessary for proper adjudication, except that there are no other reasons mentioned in the order and the Court below failed to consider that there are multiplicity of litigation created by the respondent-petitioner and his family members only to harass the petitioners-respondents and the High Court in the CRP has clarified that the availability of the suit land can only be settled after the trial. The Court below failed to consider the age of the respondent-petitioner on the date of sada bainama i.e., 28.03.1998, if his age is calculated as per the affidavit he should be 12 years. Hence, the purchasing of the property by minor itself is a question, the transaction itself is doubtful. The Court below failed to see that no document is filed by the respondent-petitioner. The documen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 67325

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADB.R.Madhusudhan Rao, JReddyshetty Srihari – AppellantVersusSurineni Chakradhar Rao – RespondentCRP.No.2226 OF 2025

The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to identify land boundaries in an injunction suit at the initial stage is impermissible if it functions as a mechanism for the plaintiff to collect evidence to support a case of possession where no such case has been prima facie established.

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, J
Reddyshetty Srihari – Appellant
Versus
Surineni Chakradhar Rao – Respondent
CRP.No.2226 OF 2025