THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.2664 of 2025

ORDER :

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2025 in Interlocutory Application No.209 of 2025 in Interlocutory Application No.212 of 2024 in Original Suit No.1341 of 2024, passed by the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad (for short, ‘the impugned order’)

2. Heard Mr.Ali Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the above I.A. which was filed by the respondents under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Court to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner for noting down the physical features of the petition schedule property, i.e., H.No.13-2-554 as per the gift deed bearing Document No.2358/2007, dated

09.05.2007 and H.No.13-2-400/2/1 with the help of a civil engineer.

4. The substantial challenge to the impugned order by the petitioner herein was the necessity for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner particularly in a suit for grant of perpetual injunction.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the substantive relief in the main suit is for grant of perpetual injunction, the law does not permit the Trial Court for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner in such case. Secondly, it was contended that as per the plaint, the suit schedule property is 63.33 Sq.yds out of a total of 330 Sq.yds., situated at Raheempura, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, bearing Municipal No.13-2-554.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the plaint schedule property is only 63.33 Sq.yds., now the Advocate-Commissioner has been ordered to take the physical features of the entire 330 Sq.yds. of property of which the plaint schedule property is only one portion that is 63.33 Sq.yds. This again, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to law as the Court could not have ordered for an Advocate-Commissioner to report for the physical features of property which are not involved in the litigation or properties which are not part of the suit schedule property.

7. Mr. M. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4, submitted that it was they who had filed the above I.A. under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner. He contended that the need for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner was to bring to the knowledge of the Trial Court the actual and factual matrix of the case and that they had filed the above application seeking only for identifying the physical features of the petition schedule property. In the process, they had sought for a report of the Advocate-Commissioner both in respect of the petition schedule ‘A’ and petition schedule ‘B’ properties. He further contended that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the petitioner in the event if the report of the Advocate-Commissioner is filed by the Trial Court, rather it would assist the Trial Court in proper adjudication of the matter.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that he does not have objection so far as the Advocate-Commissioner confining the report in respect of the suit schedule property alone.

9. Perusal of the suit filed by the petitioner would go to show that the suit schedule property is that which is reflected in the schedule attached to the plaint, details of which are reproduced hereunder, viz., SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY All that the portion of property bearing Municipal NO.13-2-554, admeasuring 63.33 Sq.yds., (out of 330 Sq.yds.), situated at Raheempura, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, bounded by ::

North :: Neighbour’s property D.No.13-2-400/2 South :: Portion of H.No.13-2-554 belonging to T. Varsha East :: Portion of H.No.13-2-554 belonging to T.