THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.881 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 26.12.2018 passed in I.A.No.1179 of 2018 in O.S.No.274 of 2018 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff herein filed a suit i.e., O.S.No.274 of 2018 seeking relief for granting permanent injunction and restraining the defendants and their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s suit schedule property.

3. It is stated that the petitioner/plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of land bearing Sy.No.333 extent Ac.0.15 gts., situated at Rajampet, Sangareddy Town and District and out of the said extent, the petitioner/plaintiff had made the same into plots and sold away the same by retaining an area of 333.51 sq.yds on the north-east corner. The persons, who have purchased the said plots, constructed residential houses and are in peaceful possession enjoyment of the same. On 25.07.2018 the respondent/defendant came to the suit schedule property and high- handedly removed boundary stones and filled the morum and tried to occupy the said plot by raising the boundary dispute. The petitioner/plaintiff with the help of friends and well wishers could resist the illegal acts of the respondent/defendant. However the respondent/defendant threatened that she would come again to occupy the suit land and as such, the petitioner/ plaintiff filed the suit against the respondent/defendant seeking the said relief.

4. Pending suit, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1179 of 2018 in O.S.No.274 of 2018 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection of land in Sy.Nos.333 and 334, Rajampet, Sangareddy Town and District and to conduct survey and note down whether the disputed land claimed by both the parties is forming part which survey number i.e, Sy.Nos.333 or 334 of Rajanpet, Sangareddy Town and District. It is stated in the affidavit that after receiving the summons in the suit the respondent herein has illegally constructed compound wall and one room encroaching into the land of the petitioner/plaintiff.

5. Respondent/defendant filed counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed the I.A. by suppressing the material facts and documents and that the petitioner had approached the Court with unclean hands to grab the plot of the respondent/defendant, who purchased the plot in the year 1989 under registered sale deed vide document No.2775/1989 dated 12.06.1989 extent 210 Sq.yds in Sy.No.334 situated at Rajampet Village, Sangareddy Town and District and that denied the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.

6. After going into the rival submissions made by the petitioner and respondent, the learned trial Court came to conclusion that “though the present petition is filed to locate and demarcate schedule property and if it is allowed it would amount to nothing but abuse of process of law and it also amounts to collection of evidence. As such, the learned Judge dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

7. Heard Ms. Shalini Donthi, learned counsel representing Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff through virtually. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondent/defendant.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the trial Court had erroneously came to conclusion that the petition filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is nothing but for collection of evidence and therefore dismissed the petition. Learned counsel further submits that since there is a dispute with regard to the identification of the land, the appointment of an advocate-commissioner would be helpful for the trial C