IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3911 of 2024

16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 Between:

Porika Sunil Kumar and 2 others …Petitioners/petitioners/ defendants and Murthula Guruva Reddy …Respondent/respondent/plaintiff

ORDER:

Heard Sri G.L.N.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri C. Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge at Mulugu (for short ‘the Trial Court’) in I.A.No.193 of 2024 in O.S.No.64 of 2023 dated 22.11.2024, wherein, a petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC Seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the boundaries of the suit schedule property and to do local investigation, has been dismissed.

3. The respondent/respondent/plaintiff filed the main suit seeking relief of perpetual injunction with respect to property consisting of a plot in Sy.No.1255/E1 to an extent of 1420 Sq.Yds., situated at Mulugu Village, Mulugu Mandal, Mulugu District, surrounded by East: Plot of Murthula Ravi, West: 100 feet road, North: 33 feet road and South: Land of others. Said suit is contested by the petitioners herein claiming that the respondent has merged the suit schedule property with their property which is subject matter in O.S.No.68 of 2023 before the same court and has obtained ad- interim injunction. It is the case of respondent that the petition is filed with an intention to collect evidence and therefore, sought its dismissal. 4. The learned counsel for petitioners argued that whenever there is a boundary dispute and serious dispute with respect to identification of property, an Advocate Commissioner may be appointed. Upon considering the contention of both the learned counsels, the Trial Court dismissed the petition leading to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the petition was filed for marking the suit boundaries, as they are disputed, but not for any other purpose. The suit property as claimed is not available on ground, but the suit is filed with wrong boundaries for the entire extent of 35 guntas instead of the land purchased by the respondent. For the purpose of avoiding clear picture, the respondent has shown wrong boundaries. According to revision petitioners, no prejudice would be caused in case an Advocate Commissioner is appointed when both the parties are claiming perfect title and both parties have got interim injunction in their respective cases. Several suits are filed with respect to same land in O.S.No.64 of 2023, O.S.No.68 of 2023 and O.S. No.46 of 2024. When both the parties are claiming perfect title, there is no question of identification of property. As such, pray that the Civil Revision Petition be allowed.

6. The learned counsel for respondent opposed the petition, claiming that in a suit for perpetual injunction which is filed by the respondent, the burden is on the respondent to prove his title as well as possession. When the burden of proof is on the respondent, it is not for the petitioners who are the defendants to prove the boundaries of the suit schedule property in the suit in O.S.No.64 of 2023. The learned counsel for respondent denied merging of boundaries or dispute about identification of the suit schedule property on ground. In any case, according to the learned counsel for respondent, it is the respondent/plaintiff who has to prove his case and only then, there would be occasion for the petitioners to disprove the evidence adduced by the respondent. As such, it is argued that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court.

7. The suit in O.S.No.64 of 2024 is filed by the respondent seeking perpetual injunction with respect to suit schedule property within specific boundaries. Therefore, the burden of proving th