Telangana High Court
S. Vanajatha vs P. Pushpalatha on 3 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2208 OF 2024
ORDER:
This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated
12.06.2024 passed in IA.No.939 of 2023 in OS.No.1043 of 2017
on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Rangareddy District, at LB.Nagar.
2. The petitioner herein is respondent/defendant and
respondent herein is petitioner/plaintiff in IA.No.939 of 2023 in
OS.No.1043 of 2017.
3. The respondent herein filed IA.No.939 of 2023 in the said
suit under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code (for short
'CPC') with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for
the purpose of localization of land in Survey No.52/AA
admeasuring Acs.2.36 guntas, situated at Nagireddypally
Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, with the
help of Assistant Director, Survey and Lands Records,
Rangareddy District, and to direct the Advocate Commissioner
to take photographs and videography of the execution of
SKS,J
CRP.No.2208 OF 2024
warrant. After hearing both sides, the trial Court allowed the
said I.A., vide order dated 12.06.2024. Aggrieved thereby, this
revision petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri P.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for revision
petitioner, and Sri Koteshwar Rao, learned counsel for
respondent.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the trial
Court committed a grave error in allowing IA.No.939 of 2023
which was filed by the respondent. He contended that the same
would amount to collecting evidence through the back door,
which is not permissible under the law. He further contended
that the petition filed by the respondent is not maintainable
either in law or on facts, and asserted that filing of said petition
is a brazen attempt to collect evidence, which is not allowed
under the law. He lamented that the trial Court failed to
consider the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.
He averred that the petitioner did not encroach on the land in
question, contrary to the allegations made by the respondent.
He disputed the contention of respondent that the petitioner
removed the boundary stones, stating that this allegation is
false.
SKS,J
CRP.No.2208 OF 2024
6. Learned counsel for petitioner had incessantly highlighted
certain discrepancies in the contentions raised by respondent in
his petition filed before the trial Court, and pointed out that the
respondent claimed to have annexed a sketch plan of the suit
schedule property to the plaint, but in reality, no such sketch
plan was annexed. He divulged that the said aspect was brought
to the notice of the trial Court, as well as, to the respondent by
the petitioner, through her written statement and counter
affidavit. Additionally, he emphasized that the petitioner is the
owner and possessor of the adjacent land, which is clear from
the registered sale deed obtained by the respondent. Further,
that the Eastern boundary of the land purchased by the
respondent shows the name of the petitioner's husband, which
establishes the ownership and possession of petitioner over the
adjacent land. He concluded his submissions advocating that
the petitioner, along with her family members, raised a mango
orchard on the adjacent land and fenced it with cement poles
and barbed wire, and that the same would establish that the
petitioner did not encroach on the land of respondent, as alleged
by him before the trial Court. In support of the said contentions,
he relied on the judgment passed by this Court in Vallapudasu
Veera Kotamma Veeramma Vs. Vallapudasu
SKS,J
CRP.No.2208 OF 2024
Surambha 1.Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the revision
petition, setting aside the impugned order.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent,
vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel
for petitioner, stating that there are no infirmities or illegalities
in the impugned order and that the trial Court has rightly
allowed the petition and appointed an Advocate Commissioner,
as there was a dispute between the parties with regard to the
suit schedule property. He contended that originally the suit
was filed for recovery of possession and also for mense profits,
asserting that the respondent is the owner of subject land to an
extent of Acs.2.36 guntas and that the same was purchased by
respondent by way of registered sale deed and that earlier also it
was surveyed by the Surveyor and the Surveyor fixed the
boundaries stones which were removed by the petitioner.
Therefore, while advocating that the appointment of Advocate
Commissioner was just and necessary for resolution of dispute
between the parties and contending that the trial Court rightly
allowed the petition, appointing an Advocate Commissioner, he
AIROnLine 2023 TEL 210
SKS,J
CRP.No.2208 OF 2024
prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petition, stating that
the same lacks merits.
8. Having regard to rival submissions made and on going
through the material placed on record, it is noted that suit for
recovery of possession and mense profits alleging that the suit
property was grabbed illegally by way of dispossession in the
year 2012, whereas, it is the specific contention that never an
instance of encroachment of the subject land was attempted
and that both the parties are having documents for their own
respective properties. It is pleaded by learned counsel for
respondent that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner
was only to the extent of localization of suit property, and that
the dispute regarding existence of land in survey numbers in
question, can be decided only after surveying the same.
9. At this stage, it is imperative to note that though learned
counsel for petitioner contended that there is no tippan for
identifying the suit property, it is noted that if there is no
tippan, the Advocate Commissioner will file the same in his
report, and if there are any revenue records readily available,
the Advocate Commissioner, with the help of Surveyor, has to
survey the subject land. Further, though learned counsel for
SKS,J
CRP.No.2208 OF 2024
petitioner relied on the judgment rendered in the case of
Vallapudasu (supra) the same does not come to aid of petitioner
in view of factual differences. Therefore, this Court is of the firm
view that there are no illegalities in the impugned order and that
the trial Court has rightly allowed the petition filed by
respondent herein, appointing an Advocate Commissioner.
There are no merits in this revision petition and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
However, having regard to the fact that OS.No.1043 of 2017
pertains to the year 2017, the trial Court is directed to dispose
of the matter as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date:03.03.2025
PT
