Telangana High Court
Santhapuram Anand vs Santhapuram Janardhan Reddy on 14 February, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.463 of 2025
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India aggrieved by the order, dated 24.01.2025,
passed in I.A.No.54 of 2019 in O.S.No.23 of 2009 on the file of
the Junior Civil Judge, Parigi, Vikarabad District, wherein the
application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151
of C.P.C. to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to get the land
in Sy.No.137 of Veerapur Village, surveyed with the help of
Mandal Surveyor, was allowed.
2. Petitioner is defendant No.1, respondent No.1 is the
plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are defendant Nos.2 and 3
in O.S.No.23 of 2009. For the sake of convenience, the parties
hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in the suit.
3. Brief facts of the case are that initially the plaintiff filed a
suit for perpetual injunction and subsequently, the suit prayer
was amended for declaration and recovery of possession. When
defendant No.1 disputed the extent and boundaries, the plaintiff
made an application before the Tahsildar, Kulkacherla seeking
for demarcation of Sy.No.137 and when the Tahsildar refused to
CVBR, J
Crp_463_2025
direct the Surveyor on the ground that defendant No.1 had
objected for survey, the plaintiff filed W.P.No.36986 of 2017
before this Court and the said writ petition was subsequently
withdrawn. As the Tahsildar did not come forward to survey
the land, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.54 of 2019 seeking to appoint
an advocate commissioner to get the subject land surveyed with
the help of Mandal Surveyor. Defendant No.1, who is the
revision petitioner herein, filed counter-affidavit stating that the
plaintiff had created false sale deed vide document No.638 of
2008, dated 05.03.2008 mentioning false boundaries and
basing on the said sale deed he has instituted a suit initially for
perpetual injunction and pending adjudication of the said suit,
having realised that the suit schedule property was not
described properly, has filed an application seeking for
amendment of the prayer and converting the injunction suit into
declaration suit and also filed an application seeking for
appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to get the land
surveyed with the help of Mandal Surveyor. After considering
the material on record, the trial Court allowed the said
application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision
Petition is filed by defendant No.1.
CVBR, J
Crp_463_2025
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant
No.1 would submit that the suit is filed in the year 2009 and the
said suit is posted for recording the evidence of the defendants
and the present petition is filed only for collection of evidence in
support of the contentions raised in the plaint and therefore the
application filed for appointment of an advocate-commissioner
to conduct survey with the help of Mandal Surveyor at this
stage is not maintainable.
5. On careful examination of the impugned order would
reveal that the trial Court relying upon the judgments of the
Apex Court in Haryana Waqf Board vs. Shanti Sarup and
Others 1 has specifically observed that to resolve the disputes
regarding the extent and boundaries and for adjudication of the
suit for declaration and recovery of possession effectively the
appointment of Advocate-Commissioner is necessary for the
facts and circumstances of the case.
6. It is settled law that the Advocate Commissioner can be
appointed only for identification of the property and its
localisation and if any report submitted by the advocate
commissioner, the same would not come in the way of the trial
2008(8) SCC 671
CVBR, J
Crp_463_2025
Court to decide the disputes among the parties. Further, the
defendants in the suit are having a right to file their objections
before the trial Court if they are aggrieved by the Advocate
Commissioner's report. Therefore, this Court deems it
appropriate to dispose of this C.R.P. granting liberty to the
revision petitioner/defendant No.1 to file his objections to the
report of the Advocate Commissioner before the trial Court and
in the event of objections, if any, filed, the trial Court is directed
to examine the said report and pass appropriate orders before
deciding the suit on merits.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
8. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
14.02.2025
gkv
