Ch. Mallesh vs Swamy Ayyappa Co-Operative Hsg. ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 616 Tel

Telangana High Court

Ch. Mallesh vs Swamy Ayyappa Co-Operative Hsg. ... on 10 April, 2026

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
                        HYDERABAD

     THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

                         C.R.P. No. 1019 OF 2026
                             DATE: 10.04.2026

Between:

Ch.Mallesh.
                                                                    ...Petitioner
                                      AND

Swamy Ayyapa Co-operative Housing Society and 16 others.
                                                  ...Respondents



Mr. V.S.R.M.V.Prasad Sanka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.


ORDER:

1. The present Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated

06.11.2025 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally ('Trial Court') in I.A. No. 1169 of

2024 in O.S. No. 319 of 2021 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for

appointing an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of conducting

survey with the help of local Mandal Surveyor for measurement and

demarcation of the suit schedule land.

2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the said I.A.

on the grounds stated in the paragraph No.7 thereof.

2 MB,J CRP_1019_2026

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has made his

submissions.

4. Admittedly, the Suit was filed in the year 2021. However, the

petitioner filed the I.A. in the year 2024 for appointing an Advocate

Commissioner for measurement and demarcation of the suit

schedule land.

5. The Trial Court hence given reasons in paragraph No.7 for

dismissing the I.A. In this regard, the Trial Court states that the

petitioner filed the I.A. after conclusion of the trial and at the time of

arguments in the Suit. The Trial Court also found that the land

claimed by the petitioner was already surveyed as far back in the

year, 1995 and panchanama was prepared pursuant to the survey.

6. The dispute between the parties commenced in the year, 1996

and the survey was conducted in a LGC No.59 of 2007 by way of a

sketch map and also filed as part of the record in the Suit.

7. The Trial Court further found that there were two survey

Reports which were already on record and the petitioner failed to give

sufficient reason as to why the petitioner failed to contest against the

survey Report which was filed by the respondents.

3 MB,J CRP_1019_2026

8. This Court does not see any irregularity in the impugned

order. Admittedly, since the petitioner failed to take any steps

challenging the survey Report which was already on record.

Moreover, it is undisputed that the petitioner filed I.A. after

conclusion of the trial and at the stage of arguments without giving

any reason as to why the petitioner waited for three (03) years to file

the I.A.

9. C.R.P.No.1019 of 2026 is accordingly dismissed, along with all

connected applications. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J DATE: 10.04.2026 gms