IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4502 OF 2025 DATED : 17.03.2026 Between:

Shaik Gouse and 3 others ... Petitioners/Defendants AND Shaik Sabeera and another ... Respondents/Plaintiff & 4^th Defendant

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition (CRP) is filed against the order of the Senior Civil Judge at Sathupalli, dt.25.11.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.72 of 2024 (old O.S.No.103 of 2012) by defendants 1 to 3 and 5 in the suit.

2. The suit was filed for perpetual injunction by respondent No.1/plaintiff. The defendants filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 for appointment of an advocate commissioner. It is stated that the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants for perpetual injunction and the written statement has also been filed. It is stated that the plaintiff has included the cart track with a width of 18 feet and length of 80 feet from Gram Panchayat road on its northern side and it passes through the houses and house sites of the defendants and the said fact cannot be proved by any documentary evidence. It is stated that the said cart track is in existence for more than 60 years and that the house site of the plaintiff did not extend up to the compound wall of Syed Jafar on the eastern side and that the house and house site of the plaintiff is situated on the western side of the cart track and therefore, it was pleaded that an advocate commissioner be appointed to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property to elicit the truth in the contention of the plaintiff. 3. The said I.A. was contested by the plaintiff and after hearing both the parties, the trial Court has dismissed the I.A. by observing that the petitioners have come with this petition at a belated stage and that appointment of an advocate commissioner at this stage is for collection of evidence and therefore, it cannot be allowed. Challenging the same, this CRP is filed.

4. Though the notice sent by the Court was not served on respondent No.1/plaintiff, the notice was served on the lower Court Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff and a memo to this effect was filed by the petitioners vide USR No.6769 of 2022. However, none appeared for respondent No.1/plaintiff before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an advocate commissioner can be appointed at any stage of the suit and even in the appellate Court also and therefore, the trial Court has power to appoint an advocate commissioner not only at the request of the petitioners but even suo motu, but the trial Court failed to consider the said legal position and also the precedents relied upon by the petitioners in dismissing the petition. It is submitted that the Court below has observed that it is an old suit, but failed to consider that on that ground alone, justice cannot be denied to the petitioners. It is stated that the Court below erroneously held that there may be possibility of non- existence of traces of the cart track after 13 years and that the present petition is filed only to drag on the matter and that such an observation is incorrect.

6. Having regard to the contentions of the petitioners as well as the material placed before this Court, it is noticed that the plaintiff has alleged that the defendants have interfered with her possession of the suit schedule property, whereas in the written statement, the defendants have asserted the existence of the cart track leading to their houses and it is submitted that if the passage is closed, there will not be any ingress and egress to the houses of the defendants and it is in these circumstances that the defendants have filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 for appointment of an advocate commissioner.

7. In the case of Md. Sardar and another Vs. Vellapu Narsing Rao and another, 2024 (5) ALT 637 (TS) in paras 13 to 15, this Court has observed as under:

“13. In the case of G.Surender Reddy Vs. M.Lakshmi and Two Others (cited 3 supra :