APHC010117532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the eighth day of April two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: Between: Dudekula Pedda Dasthagiri Dudekula Chinna Dasthagiri Counsel for the petitioner: 1. P.Nagendra Reddy Counsel for the respondent: 1. G.Sravan Kumar The Court made the following ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated I.A.No.1438 of 2023 in O.S.No.536 of 2023 Junior Civil Judge, Allagadda rule 9 CPC to appoint a and note down the physical features and to measure the suit schedule property and also to fix boundaries to the suit schedule property by measuring the site and property of the defendant with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor and to take photographs at the time of inspection and submit report with a plan. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the eighth day of April two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 606 of 2025 Dudekula Pedda Dasthagiri ...Petitioner and Dudekula Chinna Dasthagiri ...Respondent etitioner: P.Nagendra Reddy espondent: The Court made the following This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of order dated 07.02.2025 allowing I.A.No.886 of 202 I.A.No.1438 of 2023 in O.S.No.536 of 2023 on the file of the Allagadda filed by the defendant under Order XXVI ule 9 CPC to appoint a commissioner to visit the suit schedule property and note down the physical features and to measure the suit schedule property and also to fix boundaries to the suit schedule property by site and property of the defendant with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor and to take photographs at the time of inspection and submit report with a plan. [3311] Tuesday, the eighth day of April two thousand and twenty five Petitioner Respondent This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of of 2024 in on the file of the Court of the defendant under Order XXVI, to visit the suit schedule property and note down the physical features and to measure the suit schedule property and also to fix boundaries to the suit schedule property by site and property of the defendant with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor and to take photographs at the time of inspection and 2 CRP.No.606 of 2025 2. The respondent / plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property of rice mill and open site situated at third block, 4th ward (new), 8th ward (old) within the limits of Allagadda Municipality, Allagadda town and mandal, Allagadda sub-registration district, Nandyal registration district to an extent of 288 square yards in Survey No.337, wherein Madina Mini Rice Mill is located within a constructed area of 2380 square yards bounded on: East: open site of the defendant West: S.Lingamdinne road North: S.Lingamdinne road South: Mahalakshmi Kalyana Mandapam 3. The plaintiff, along with the suit, filed I.A.No.1438 of 2023 under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 seeking interim injunction. Ad-interim injunction was granted. 4. The defendant resisted the suit and filed this petition contending that the plaint schedule property belongs to the defendant and he is in possession and enjoyment of it and that the plaintiff filed the suit to grab the property. He further contended that site on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property belongs to the defendant to the knowledge of the plaintiff, however suppressing the facts, the plaintiff obtained interim injunction order and stated that trying to trespass into the site of the defendant. Therefore, he contended that it is necessary to appoint a commissioner for the aforesaid purpose. 5. The petition was resisted by filing counter not admitting the contentions of the defendant and further stating that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the plaint schedule property under the registered sale deed filed along with the plaint, but the defendant filed written statement 3 CRP.No.606 of 2025 and counter stating that the suit schedule property belongs to him and therefore, there is a dispute of title in respect of the plaint schedule property, so a commissioner should not be appointed to decide the right over the property. Hence, the petition is not maintainable. 6. After hearing both parties, the trial Court allowed the petition observing that the counsel for the respondent / plaintiff conceded in allowing the petition and after consideration of the circumstances stated in the affidavit, the Court felt it proper and necessary to appoint a commissioner. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and Sri N.Sudarshan, Advocate was appointed as commissioner as prayed. 7. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed on the grounds that the trial Court ought to have seen that the parties should not use the Court as an instrument to gather the evidence and that a commissioner cannot be appointed to fix the boundaries because such functions shall be performed under the provisions of A.P.Boundaries Act and that the petition ought to have been dismissed by the trial Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court erred in recording that the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff conceded to grant the relief and further reiterated the grounds taken in the revision. He further submitted that the matter needs to be remitted to the trial Court for reconsideration as the order of the trial Court was not passed on merits. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court rightly passed the order and the same does not require interference. He further submitted that appointment of commissioner does not amount to gathering of evidence and that measurement of the site may be allowed if not to fix the boundaries. 4 CRP.No.606 of 2025 10. It is settled law that the proceedings recorded by the Court are presumed to be correct. Therefore, the contention that the trial Court erroneously recorded that the counsel conceded cannot be accepted and moreover there is no such ground taken in the revision. 11. Insofar as the relief granted is concerned, though it is a suit for permanent injunction, law does not bar appointment of a commissioner, merely because there is a dispute of title. The purpose of appointment of commissioner can be to note down the physical features and, if necessary, to measure the site as well. However, it is beyond the authority of a commissioner to fix the boundaries. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have directed the commissioner to fix the boundaries. For the other purposes stated in the order, there is no error committed by the trail Court in appointing the commissioner. 12. Therefore, the matter does not require remand to the trial Court for fresh consideration. 13. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed by setting aside the direction to the commissioner in the order dated 07.02.2025 in I.A.No.886 of 2024 in I.A.No.1438 of 2023 in O.S.No.536 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Allagadda for fixing boundaries. And the rest of the order is confirmed. It is needless to say that the Commissioner shall give prior notice to both parties or their counsels and answer work memos, if any, given. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this civil revision petition, shall stand closed. ___________________ Dt.08.04.2025 B.S.BHANUMATHI, J PNV