1. Suit for perpetual injunction — Boundary dispute between parties over land in same survey number — Appointment of Advocate Commissioner sought. (Para 1 , 2 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 282
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.
Putta Raghunandan Reddy and another – Petitioners
Versus
Guntha Ramalingaiah and others – Respondents
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4459 of 2025
Decided On : 30-03-2026
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Petitioner Counsel: (Ms.) K. Indraja
Respondent Counsel: Jillella Rajeswara Rao
Advocate Appeared:
Petitioner Counsel: (Ms.) K. Indraja
Respondent Counsel: Jillella Rajeswara Rao
In a suit for perpetual injunction, an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for demarcation if such action amounts to collecting evidence to prove possession, as the party must establish possession on its own strength.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXVI Rule 9 - Appointment of Advocate Commissioner for local investigation - Suit for perpetual injunction - Boundary dispute and demarcation of land - Where a party seeks appointment of a commissioner to measure and demarcate land to prove their possession in an injunction suit, such appointment would amount to collection of evidence - In a suit for injunction, the party must establish possession on its own strength - A commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of collecting evidence which the party can provide by other modes of evidence. (Paras 9, 18, 20)
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 - Scope of Revision - The power of the High Court under Section 115 is limited to examining the existence of legal infirmity, such as when a subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
Defendants in a suit for perpetual injunction filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure and demarcate a specific extent of agricultural land in a survey number, alleging a boundary dispute. The trial court dismissed the said application, leading the defendants to challenge the order through a revision petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that although there appeared to be a boundary dispute, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the property in an injunction suit would not aid in deciding the issue of possession but would instead result in the collection of evidence. Since the party seeking the relief must prove possession on its own strength, the trial court's decision to dismiss the application was correct.
Issues: Whether the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the demarcation of boundaries in a suit for perpetual injunction is permissible or whether it amounts to the impermissible collection of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is intended to elucidate matters in dispute and not to collect evidence that a party should prove on its own. In injunction suits, possession must be proved by the party on its own strength; hence, using a commissioner to demarcate land to establish possession is not permissible.
Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Defendants sought commissioner to demarcate land and resolve boundary dispute. Plaintiffs opposed stating it amounts to collection of evidence. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. In an injunction suit, appointment of commissioner for demarcation would amount to collection of evidence, not aiding the court. (Para 20 )
4. Appointment of Advocate Commissioner in an injunction suit that leads to collection of evidence is not permissible. (Para 20 )
5. Civil Revision Petition dismissed as no infirmity found in the trial court's order. (Para 21 )
6. Can an Advocate Commissioner be appointed in an injunction suit for demarcation of property boundaries?
No, if the appointment would lead to collection of evidence that the parties can otherwise place before the court, it is not permissible. (Para 18 , 20 )
7. What is the proper purpose of a commission for local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC?
A commission can be ordered when the court deems a local investigation requisite or proper for elucidating a matter in dispute. (Para 9 , 10 )
8. Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere in revision under Section 115 CPC?
The High Court can interfere only if the subordinate court exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally with material irregularity. (Para 14 , 15 )
ORDER :
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by petitioners-defendants aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2025 passed in I.A. No.236 of 2025 in O.S No.181 of 2025 by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the revision petitioners are defendants in O.S. No.181 of 2025 filed by respondents-plaintiffs, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants filed I.A. No.236 of 2025 under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure and demarcate the land of the defendants to an extent of Ac.1-29 gts., in Sy. No.643/E, situated at Vattem Village, Bijinapally Mandal, with the help of the Mandal Surveyor. The trial court has dismissed the said application vide order dated 29.10.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants have filed the present revision petition.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred as they were arrayed before the trail court in I.A. No.236 of 2025.
4. Heard Ms. K. Indraja, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants and Sri Jillela Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants has submitted that the suit is filed by the respondents-plaintiffs seeking injunction and that there is a serious boundary dispute between both the parties. She further has submitted that the petitioners never tried to interfere with the possession of the respondents over the subject property in any way and that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of the property. However, since there is a boundary dispute, the respondents are alleging interference and encroachment on them to rule out the said dispute. Hence, the petitioners seek appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure the alleged land in Survey No.643/E and demarcate the land to an extent of Ac.1.29 gts., with the help of the Mandal Surveyor, so that the Court can come to a correct conclusion and adjudicate the matter. The appointment of Advocate Commissioner would aid the Court in arriving at a correct finding and would resolve the dispute between both the parties. She therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order. She has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in P. Sridevi v. IVLN Venkata Lakshmi Narsimha Prasad , 2020 SCC OnLIne TS 706 and the decision of this Court in Tangella Ranga Reddy v. Koppula Srinivas Reddy , 2023 (6) ALD 637 (TS)
6. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs has submitted that the petitioners have been interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondents over their land and hence, the respondents have filed the suit for restraining them in resorting to the alleged acts and that the respondents have ample evidence on record to prove their possession over the subject land and that the petitioners cannot interfere with the peaceful possession of the respondents over the subject land. He further has submitted that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in an injunction suit would lead to collection of evidence and that the petitioners should be able to prove their possession on the subject land to disprove the case of the respondents and therefore, the appointment of Advocate Commissioner in the suit is absolutely not necessary and that the trial court has arrived at a right conclusion and has rightly dismissed the petition. He, therefore, prayed to uphold the orders of the trial court. He relied upon the decisions of the High Court of A.P. in K.Rafeeq Basha v. Valukuru Rama Krishna and others , 2024 (6) ALD 85 (AP) and Vasupalli Danayya v. Pinnamaraju Srinivas and others , 2023(6) ALD 614 (AP)
7. Perused the record.
8. The petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S. No.181 of 2025, which is pending before the court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool. It was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs seeking injunction res
