HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3327 of 2025

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to allow the same by setting aside the docket order dated 05-08-2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Kodad in O.S.No.20 of 2025 (old O.S.No.18 of 2010).

2. Heard M/s.Shaik Madar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features shown in the Suit Schedule in O.S.No.20 of 2025 and to measure the land within the boundaries with the help of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, District Surveyor, Suryapet vide I.A.No.375 of 2018 in O.S.No.20 of 2025 (Old O.S.No.18 of 2010). On 28.07.2025, the Advocate Commissioner filed a memo stating that as per schedule, both the parties along with their counsel and Deputy Inspector of Surveyor, Kodad Division as deputed by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records were present at the suit schedule land. For demarcation of boundary in two revenue villages, the Deputy Inspector of Surveyor observed the land marks and naksha stones. But they were not accurate. As such, he advised for fixing the boundary stones, the field must be measured. But on the ground it is not possible at present as recently the paddy crop was raised and also the entire field is muddy. Upon which, the learned trial Court Judge passed a docket order as under:

“This is a case of year 2010. Since long time Commissioner Warrant is pending un-executed. However this Court gave one more opportunity by allowing petition on 27.06.2025. Finally on 28.07.2025, the Advocate Commissioner and Deputy Inspector of Survey present and filed report by stating that it is not possible to survey the land at this Juncture.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court Judge is illegal and contrary to law. The learned trial Court Judge has passed the impugned order erroneously without considering the well established principles resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. The learned trial Court Judge ought to have granted time to the Advocate Commissioner for execution of the commissioner warrant after the paddy crop is harvested in the schedule property, instead of closing the warrant in I.A.No.100 of 2025 as un-

executed.

5. It is further submitted that even the Deputy Inspector of Surveyor, Kodad Division reported that as there is standing paddy crop it is not possible to conduct survey and after completion of the paddy crop only the demarcation is proper. But the learned trial Court judge without considering the aspect has closed the warrant as un-executed. He further submitted that the trial Court Judge without granting opportunity for further demarcation had proceeded with the trial by hearing the defendant side arguments on 11.09.2025. It is further submitted that the survey of the suit schedule land is necessary for proper adjudication of the issue for which O.S.No.20 of 2025 was filed, failing which it will cause severe hardship and serious prejudice to the petitioner, which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money. Hence, prayed this Court to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order for proper adjudication.

6. A perusal of the record and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though there is report of the commissioner specifically stating that due to the standing crop in the suit schedule land it is not possible to conduct survey in the said land, the learned judge without appreciating the commissioner report closed the warrant as unexecuted. This Court is of the view that the survey of the land is necessary for proper adjudication of the issue in O.S.No.20 of 2025 in the suit filed for Declaration and Perpetual Injunction in respect of suit schedule property. In view of the same, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. In view of the aforesaid re