1 VS,J CRP.No.1976 of 2026 APHC010364582026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE 17th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1976/2026 Between: 1. KONISI TRINADHARAO, S/O. LATE. THOUDU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ADVOCATE,R/AT. KOTHA GAVIDI STREET, CHEEPURUPALLI V M,VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. KONISI KRISHNA VENI, W/O. KONISI. TRINADHARAO,, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. ADVOCATE,R/AT. KOTHA GAVIDI STREET, CHEEPURUPALLI V M ,VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SUBUDDHI RAMARAO, S/O. LATE. SRIRAMULU,I, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. RETD. FACOR EMPLOYEE,R/AT. KOTHA GAVIDI STREET, CHEEPURUPALLI V M ,VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. PIN- 535 128. 2. SUBUDDHI LAKSHMANARAO, S/O. LATE. SRIRAMULU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. RETD. TEACHER,R/AT. KOTHA GAVIDI STREET, CHEEPURUPALLI V M ,VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. PIN- 535 128. 3. SUBUDDHI JAGADESWARA RAO, S/O. LATE. SRIRAMULU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OUTSOURCING EMPLOYEE,R/AT. KOTHA GAVIDI STREET, CHEEPURUPALLI V M ,VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. PIN- 535 128. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J CRP.No.1976 of 2026 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toAggrieved by the impugned Decree and Order dtd. 19-06-2026 passed in LA. 450/2025 in O.S. No.99/2018, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurapalli, Vizianagaram District, IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to Stay all further proceedings in the suit O.S. 99 / 2018, the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram district and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M V RAJA RAAM 2. Dr M V Raja Raam Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T V SRI DEVI The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CRP.No.1976 of 2026 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/defendants aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile) – cum – II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, dated 19.06.2026 in I.A.No.450 of 2025 in O.S.No.99 of 2018, whereby, the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‗CPC‘), for appointing an advocate commissioner to localize the properties situated in S.No.112-6 at Kotha Gavidi street, Cheepurupalli village with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor, Cheepurupalli as well as to note the physical features on the ground. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: (a) For convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are brothers and the 3rd plaintiff is the son of the 1st plaintiff. The plaint schedule property, admeasuring Acs.0.76 cents in S.No.112/6 of Cheepurupalli village, is said to have succeeded upon the plaintiffs from their ancestors and accordingly, revenue authorities have issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour. (b) While the matter stood thus, the defendants, who are a couple, approached the plaintiffs for purchasing the plaint schedule properties, however, as the plaintiffs refused to sell the same, the defendants are alleged 4 VS,J CRP.No.1976 of 2026 to have bore grudge against the plaintiffs and started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without having any right or title over the same. Hence, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.99 of 2018 against the defendants seeking the following prayer: ―i) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any way and also from trespassing into the plaint schedule property; ii) For costs of the suit; and iii) Such other relief or relieves as the Honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case‖ (c) The defendants have contested the suit by filing their written statement. It is the case of the defendants that the land admeasuring Acs.0.05 cents in S.No.154-10 which is correlated to S.No.112-6 of Kotha Gavidi street is purchased by father of the 1st defendant under registered sale deed dated 02.01.1975 and the same is also reflected in the Will dated 09.10.2017 executed by his late father. After recording evidence adduced by both the parties, when the Court below adjourned the matter on several occasions for arguments, the defendants filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC, with a plea to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to localize the plaint schedule property and his property situated in S.No.112-6 with the help of surveyor, which was dismissed by the Court below vide impugned order dated 19.06.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed this revision petition. 5 VS,J CRP.No.1976 of 2026 3. Heard Mr. M.V. Raja Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Perused the entire material available on record. Appointment of Advocate Commissioner is contemplated under Section 75 of Code of Civil Procedure and Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 deals about the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner, which are extracted hereunder: ―Section 75 – Power of court to issue commissions: - Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the court may issue a commission- 1. to examine any person; 2. to make a local investigation; 3. to examine or adjust accounts; or 4. to make a partition; 5. to hold a scientific, technical, or expert investigation; 6. to conduct sale of property which is subject to speedy and natural decay and which is in the custody of the Court pending the determination of the suit; 7. to perform any ministerial act. Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10: - 9. Commissions to make local investigations.—In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court: 10. Procedure of Commissioner.— 6 VS,J CRP.No.1976 of 2026 (1) The Commissioner, after such local inspection as he deems necessary and after reducing to writing the evidence taken by him, shall return such evidence, together with his report in writing signed by him, to the Court. (2) Report and depositions to be evidence in suit. Commissioner may be examined in person.—The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him (but not the evidence without the report) shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record; but the Court or, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation. (3) Where the Court is for any reason dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner, it may direct such further inquiry to be made as it shall think fit.‖ 5. Admittedly, the object of issuance of commission under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C., is to elucidate any matter in dispute but not to collect or gather evidence. An Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for making an enquiry about factum of possession of the property in dispute, which is nothing but fishing out evidence and not elucidating the matter in dispute. 6. It is to be noted that the power of the Court under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC is discretionary and the same has to be exercised in a judicious manner, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court has to appreciate the overall case by taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and the reliefs claimed with reference to the controversy between the parties and the necessity to appoint Advocate Commissioner in deciding the 7 VS,J CRP.No.1976 of 2026 dispute. It is settled law that an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed at any stage of the suit or during the pendency of the appeal. 7. While dealing with the issue of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, a learned Judge of the erstwhile Common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in Bandi Samuel and another Vs. Medida Nageswara Rao1, while referring to a catena of cases observed as under: ―7. The object of Order 26 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code is not to assist a party to collect evidence where the party can procure the same. An Advocate Commissioner can be appointed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 inter alia for elucidating any matter in dispute. There is some confusion as to in what circumstances an advocate-commissioner is to be appointed in a civil suit. To answer this question, we have to understand the expression of elucidating any matter in dispute in Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC. There are several expressions in this regard. Some are under the impression that no advocate commissioner is to be appointed in suit for injunction. For example, the claim for injunction made by the plaintiff is based on the plea that there is only one way to his house and that he is being prevented by the defendant from using said way, any amount of evidence in this regard may not help the Court to render a correct finding on this aspect, as evidence in this regard would be available on the spot at the ground/field. So, a situation such as this would definitely fall within the expression of elucidating any matter in dispute to avoid adducing of much oral evidence by consuming time of Court and parties and ultimately with no possibility of practical approach for accurate determination of the lis. No doubt, before appointing an advocate commissioner, Court shall examine pleadings, relief claimed and real controversy between parties. Court has to keep in mind therefrom 1 2017(1)ALD582 8 VS,J CRP.No.1976 of 2026 to decide whether there is an actual necessity to appoint advocate commissioner to decide any real controversy between parties. 8. No doubt an Advocate-Commissioner cannot be appointed for making an enquiry about factum of possession of the property in dispute, which is nothing, but fishing of information and not elucidating any matter in dispute. 9. There are circumstances in which, it is only a Commissioner inspecting the property promptly and recording timely assessment of what obtains relating to the property from threat of changing or obliterating the existing physical features lo destroy valuable evidence on ground, could alone assist courts to decide correctly. If such prompt actions are not taken, it may destroy the valuable rights of the parties. 10. In Bandaru Mutyalu Vs. Palli Appalaraju (2013 (5) ALD 376 = 2013 (6) ALT 26), it was held that in situations where there is controversy as to identification, location or measurement of the land, local investigation should be done at an early stage so that the parties are aware of the report of the Commissioner and go to trial prepared and the object of local investigation under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code which cannot belittled for that conclusion placed reliance upon Sanjay, Son of Namdeo Khandare Vs. Saheb Rao Kachru Khandare, 2001 (4) CCC 416; Ponnusamy Pandaram Vs. The Salem Vaiyappamalai Jangamar Sangam, AIR 1986 Mad.33, Mahendranath Panda Vs. Purnanada & Others, AIR 1988 Ori. 248; C.Veeramma v. C.Venkatachalam, 1958 ALT 792 = AIR 1959 AP 170, and Savitramma v. B.Changa Reddy, 1988 (1) ALT. 11. In J. Satyasri Rambabu Vs. A. Anasuya, 2005 (6) ALD 389, this Court at paragraph No.6 held as under: It is no doubt true that the Courts are normally reluctant to appoint a Commissioner for noting physical features of the suit schedule property, particularly in a suit for injunction since the same would amount to collecting evidence in favour of one of the parties. However, there is absolutely no reason to hold that it is a hard and fact rule. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly whenever the Court prima facie finds that there is an attempt on the part of one of the parties to alter the physical features of the suit 9 VS,J CRP.No.1976 of 2026 property and it is necessary to take note of the same, it is always open to the Court to appoint a Commissioner for inspection of such property. 12. In Mallikarjuna Srinivasa Gupta Vs. K. Sheshirekha, 2006 (3) ALD 362, in which case, a suit was filed for declaration of title and an application was filed contending that the defendant therein encroached a portion of the site. The stand of the defendant therein was that he has not encroached any portion of the site as alleged by the plaintiff. In the circumstances, this Court held as follows: By mere looking into the sale deed or the lay out, it is not possible to determine the rights, unless it is verified whether any portion of the building is constructed in Plot No.62. Therefore, it is essential to consider the request of the petitioner for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the purpose mentioned therein. 13. In Varala Ramachandra Reddy Vs. Mekala Yadi Reddy and others, 2010 (4) ALD 198, it was held that an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed in an injunction suit for local inspection of the suit site and to demarcate the suit schedule property with the help of the Surveyor. 14. In Shaik Zareena Kasam v. Patan Sadab Khan, 2011 (4) ALD 231, this Court at paragraph No. 10 held as under: Whenever there is a dispute regarding boundaries or physical features of the property or any allegation of encroachment as narrated by one party and disputed by another party, the facts have to be physically verified, because the recitals of the documents may not reveal the true facts and measuring of land on the spot by a Surveyor may become necessary. It was also held referring to Mallikarjuna Srinivasa Gupta and Varala Ramachandra Reddy (supra), that if there is some delay in filing the application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and if there are some laches on the part of one party, the Court may impose reasonable COSES 15. In Donadulu Uma Devi v. Girika Katamaiah @ Basaiah, 2013 (2) ALD 86 = 2013 (1) ALT 548, it was held at para 12 that when there is a dispute or issue with regards to identity of a property in a litigation it is necessary to appoint a Commissioner for localizing the property which may be even by 10 VS,J CRP.No.1976 of 2026 taking necessary assistance from a qualified surveyor which will not amount to collecting evidence which is prohibited. 16…….. 17. The Supreme Court in Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & others vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund and others, CDJ 2007 SC 1339, has held that the learned trial Judge may appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of taking measurement and demarcation of the disputed suit land. 18. The Supreme Court in Haryana Waqf Board supra, at paragraphs 4 to 8 held as under: "Admittedly, in this case, an application was filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was rejected by the trial Court but in view of the fact that it was a case of demarcation of the disputed land, it was appropriate for the Court to direct the investigation by appointing a Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC." 8. Undisputedly, in situations where there is controversy as to identification, location or measurement of the land, local investigation should be done at an early stage so that the parties are aware of the report of the Commissioner and go to trial prepared. Whenever there is a dispute regarding boundaries or physical features of the property or any allegation of encroachment as narrated by one party and disputed by another party, the facts have to be physically verified, because the recitals of the documents may not reveal the true facts and measuring of land on the spot by a Surveyor may become necessary. 9. A perusal of the material available on record would show that there is no controversy as to identification, location or measurement of the subject land. The Courts are normally reluctant to appoint a Commissioner for noting 11 VS,J CRP.No.1976 of 2026 physical features of the suit schedule property, particularly in a suit for injunction since the same would amount to collecting evidence in favour of one of the parties, that too at a belated stage when the suit is coming up for arguments. A local investigation by the Advocate Commissioner should not be ordered for the purpose of gathering evidence or filling gaps in a party‘s case. 10. Learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs brought to the notice of this Court that since the date of filing of the suit, the revision petitioners have been delaying the proceedings of the Court below by filing various applications and stated that initially, on 20.03.2019, I.A.No.440 of 2018 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was allowed granting injunction pending suit after elaborate enquiry with reference to the documents filed by both the parties. Aggrieved by the said injunction orders, the revision petitioners filed C.M.A.No.07 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.12.2021. Assailing the said dismissal order, the revision petitioners filed C.R.P.No.655 of 2022 before this Court and I.A.No.1 of 2022 was filed seeking permission of this Court to proceed with the constructions; this Court has directed the revision petitioners to make constructions subject to a condition that they would not claim equities in the event of losing the suit and to file memo to that effect. 12 VS,J CRP.No.1976 of 2026 11. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs further stated that the revision petitioners, on 08.04.2022 filed a memo bearing USR.No.18880 of 2022 stating that they would forego the costs of construction along with site, if at all they do not succeed in the suit. Recording the same, C.R.P.No.655 of 2022 preferred by the revision petitioners was dismissed on 17.08.2022. The revision petitioners filed I.A.No.3 of 2022 in C.R.P.No.655 of 2022 to review the order dated 17.08.2022, which was dismissed on 15.12.2022. Subsequently, the transfer C.M.P.No.312 of 2022 which was filed by the revision petitioners seeking to transfer the subject suit was dismissed on 21.12.2022. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the respondents‘/plaintiffs‘ evidence is closed and subsequently, the petitioners‘/defendants‘ evidence was also completed in the year 2023; the revision petitioners have filed a petition to reopen their evidence and the same was allowed. 12. The revision petitioners filed as many as 10 interlocutory applications to drag on the suit proceedings after completion of evidence on either sides. The said suit was coming up for arguments since 08.04.2025 and was being adjourned thereafter on conditions and costs, at that stage, the revision petitioners have filed I.A.No.450 of 2025 in O.S.No.99 of 2018 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. It is very clear that the petitioners/defendants have filed the subject application with an ulterior motive for making enquiry about factum of possession of the 13 VS,J CRP.No.1976 of 2026 property in dispute, which is nothing but fishing of information and with a view to procrastinate the suit proceedings. As such, the Court below has rightly considered the application filed by the petitioner/defendants for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. 13. In view of my foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 19.06.2026 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile) – cum – II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, in I.A.No.450 of 2025 in O.S.No.99 of 2018 need not be interfered with by exercising the supervisory jurisdiction vested on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:17.07.2026 Gss