IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4459 of 2025 Date:30.03.2026 Between:

Putta Raghunandan Reddy and another …Petitioners/Defendants And Guntha Ramalingaiah and three others … Respondents/plaintiffs

ORDER:

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,