Telangana High Court
Vanga Bal Reddy vs Sriramoji Premala on 18 November, 2025
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3431 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the
order dated 30.07.2025 passed in I.A. No. 317 of 2025 in I.A.
No. 816 of 2023 in O.S. No. 420 of 2023, on the file of the
learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Rajanna Sircilla.
2. Heard Mr. B. Arjun Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioners, and Smt. B. Shirisha, learned counsel for the
respondent.
3. The revision petitioners, who are the defendants before
the trial Court, filed a petition under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking appointment of an
Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the suit schedule property
and fix its boundaries.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a local
inspection and demarcate the property would assist the Court
in resolving the dispute effectively and in determining the
precise boundaries of the suit schedule land. He contends that
the object of appointing a Commissioner is not to collect
evidence on behalf of either party but to enable the Court to
properly appreciate the physical features and extent of the
property in controversy. However, the trial Court, without
appreciating the necessity of such demarcation, dismissed the
petition on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage,
holding that no valid reasons were made out for such
appointment.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff
submits that the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion
in rejecting the application, observing that appointment of a
Commissioner at this stage would prejudice the respondent's
interests and delay the progress of the trial. It is further
contended that the defendants may renew such a request after
leading evidence, if necessary, and therefore no interference is
warranted at this interlocutory stage.
6. I have perused the material available on record and
considered the rival submissions advanced by both learned
counsel.
7. It is not in dispute that the revision
petitioners/defendants filed the present application for
appointment of an Advocate Commissioner at the stage of
framing of issues, seeking demarcation of the suit schedule
property and fixation of boundaries.
8. The trial Court, by the impugned order, declined the said
request, primarily relying upon the judgment of this Court in
Dammalapati Satyanarayana v. Datla Venkata Ramabhadra
Raju, 2003 (4) ALD 675, wherein it was held that the
appointment of a Commissioner is not intended to collect
evidence for either party, and that the same should be permitted
only where it is essential to assist the Court in resolving
ambiguity regarding the property in dispute.
9. The trial Court also placed reliance on the recent
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bodiga
Laxmaiah v. Ilavoni Chinna Jangaiah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3236, where it was reiterated that the power under Order XXVI
Rule 9 CPC is discretionary, and that a Commissioner should
not be appointed as a matter of routine, particularly when the
evidence of the parties is yet to be concluded or where such
appointment may prejudice one of the parties. The Supreme
Court emphasized that such a request, if considered
prematurely, could amount to delegating to the Commissioner
the judicial function of determining possession or ownership,
which is impermissible in law.
10. In the present case, as rightly observed by the trial Court,
the petition seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner
was filed at a premature stage, i.e., before completion of the
evidence. At such a juncture, the trial Court is justified in
holding that the demarcation exercise could influence or
prejudice the course of trial.
11. Having regard to the settled legal position and the stage of
the proceedings, this Court is of the view that no infirmity or
irregularity can be found in the order of the trial Court
warranting interference under revisional jurisdiction.
12. However, it is made clear that the petitioners are at liberty
to file a fresh application before the trial Court, after conclusion
of the evidence, if such demarcation or local inspection is found
necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute.
13. In view of the above discussion, the Civil Revision Petition
is dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioners to renew their
request for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner at the
appropriate stage before the trial Court. There shall be no order
as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Petition,
shall stand closed.
_________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 18.11.2025
MRKR
