THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2198 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 07.04.2025 in I.A.No.239 of 2024 in O.S.No.14 of 2024 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”)

2. Heard the submissions of Sri V. Hanmanth Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that a petition to appoint Advocate Commissioner for examining physical features of the land was filed by the respondents herein and that the trial Court has allowed the petition by granting more than the relief that is asked in the petition. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present petition is filed. He further submitted that the Advocate Commissioner cannot collect the evidence, but he can only examine the physical features. Hence, he prayed to set aside the orders passed in I.A.No.239 of 2024 and pass appropriate orders. He further submitted that they do not have any objection if Advocate Commissioner is appointed for examining the physical features, but nothing more than that can be done by the Advocate Commissioner as directed by the trial Court, while allowing the petition under challenge.

4. The respondent counsel has submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and that the present suit is filed for Declaration of Title and that the petitioner herein is claiming land under a non-existing survey number. Therefore, he pleaded that the physical features of the suit schedule property may be examined through an Advocate Commissioner. Hence, he prayed the trial Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner which was rightly allowed by the trial Court. He therefore, prayed to uphold the orders of the trial Court. 5. Perused the record. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

6. I.A.No.239 of 2024 is filed seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under Order-XXIX, Rule-9 for examining the physical features of the suit schedule property. The contention of the petitioners before the trial Court is that they are the title holders of suit schedule property and that the respondents have no right, interest or title, but have developed a sore eye on their property as it is adjacent to the R & B road and it is commercial in nature. It is further elicited that all the respondents in this petition have filed a suit against him vide O.S.No.41 of 2023 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool, by showing false boundaries with the help of false and created documents and that they had obtained an Injunction in their favour and that the suit is pending adjudication. It is his further case that he has also filed a suit for Injunction against the respondents in O.S.No.455 of 2023 in which the village and caste elders assured him that they would settle the matter and thus, he has not pressed the said suit on 24.07.2024. It is his case that when he visited the petition schedule property for further work on the land, the respondents came along with their men and tried to dispossess him from the petition schedule property, but on timely interference, through his supporters, he could resist. Therefore, he filed the suit i.e., O.S.No.14 of 2024 for Declaration of Title and in the said suit, he has filed this I.A seeking a prayer that the Court may appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure the property, fix the boundaries of the suit schedule property as well as the property of the respondents as per the parental documents of the respondents.

6. The respondents in the petition have filed a counter before the trial Court contending that the respondents are in possession of the petition schedule property, and that they have been enjoying the same. They further contended that boundaries of their land are already fixed and that