HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.694 of 2024

ORDER:

The Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the docket order dated 09.10.2023 passed in IA.No.165 of 2023 in OS.No.441 of 2022 by the Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the respondents herein, under Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w Section 11 of CPC for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, was allowed and Advocate Commissioner was appointed.

2. Heard Sri Y.Ashok Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pasam Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the Respondents herein are Defendants in the suit.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the petitioner herein filed a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.01.14 guntas in Sy.No.215/12/2, situated at Kannekal Revenue Village, Madgulapally Mandal, Nalgonda District (herein after referred to as the ‘suit schedule property’). The respondents/defendants filed written statement contending that the respondents are owners of land in Sy.No.214 of the same village, however, the petitioner herein is trying to interfere with their land by falsely claiming that the suit land is in Survey No.215/12/2. It is further submitted that the respondents filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w.151 of CPC for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to resolve the issue and to demarcate the boundary lines in between Survey No.214 and 215/12/2, with the assistance of Government Surveyor or qualified private surveyor. It is further submitted that on 09.10.2023, counsel for petitioner was absent and in his absence, the trial Court allowed the application vide impugned order without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to file counter. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra learned counsel for respondents/defendants would submit that the respondents are owners of land in Survey No.214 of the same village and are in possession, however, the petitioner herein filed suit falsely claiming that the suit land is situated in Survey No.215/12/2. Therefore, to resolve the dispute as to whether the suit schedule property is situated in Survey No.214 or 215/12/2, the respondent filed an application for appointment of Commissioner vide IA.No.165 of 2023 under Order XXVI rule 9 r/w.151 of CPC, for the purpose of demarcating the boundary line in between Sy.Nos.214 and 215 of Kannekal Revenue Village by taking assistance of either government surveyor or qualified private surveyor, since no amount of evidence can resolve the issue as to whether the suit land is in survey No.214 or 215. He further submits that despite giving opportunity, the petitioner/plaintiff failed to file counter in the said application. Further there was no representation on behalf of petitioner on 09.10.2023, therefore, the trial Court rightly allowed the application and no grounds are made out.

6. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction against the respondents/defendants in respect of the suit schedule property situated in Survey No. 215/12/2. However, it is the specific contention of the respondents/defendants that they are the owners of land in Survey No. 214 of the same village, and that the petitioner/plaintiff is interfering with their possession by erroneously claiming it to be their land.

7. It is appropriate to refer to the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Bandaru Mutyalu and another Vs. Palli Appalaraju, AIR Online 2013 AP 120wherein it is held that in situations where there is controversy as to identity, location or measurement of land, local investigation should be done at an early stage so that the parties are aware of the report of the Commissioner and go to trial prepared