APHC010124372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 830/2025 Between: Mallisetti Arjuna Rao, ...PETITIONER AND Prathi Ram Babu Sitaramaiah ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M K RAJ KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: RNT, J CRP No.830 of 2025 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 830 of 2025 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri M. K. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 2. The civil revision petition has been filed by the defendant in O.S. No.47 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid. In the said suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent, the plaintiff had filed the application I.A.No.603 of 2024 for issue of an advocate-commissioner for survey of the plaint schedule property, giving the Sy.No.250 situated at Gopavaram village with the help of Mandal Surveyor, Musunuru. The application was allowed by the learned Court by Order dated 05.09.2024. The Advocate-Commissioner was appointed. The advocate-commissioner issued notice to the defendant/petitioner on 27.01.2025. On receipt of such notice, the petitioner filed I.A.No.56 of 2025 on 03.02.2025, requesting to direct the advocate- commissioner to measure the lands of the petitioner as also the respondent as per the new L.P.Numbers 232, 233, 234, 235 and 236 and new F.M.B along with his plan. In the affidavit in support of the said application, it was stated that the Sy.No.250 with respect to which the advocate-commission was issued was changed in the meantime. He also, made endorsement in the notice given by the advocate-commissioner dated 03.02.2025 that the measurements be made as per the new survey numbers. RNT, J CRP No.830 of 2025 3 3. On the said petition, initially, the counter was invited, fixing 10.02.2025. However, on 03.02.2025 the said petition has been returned with endorsement “How this petition is maintainable. Hence returned.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition was maintainable and should not have been returned. The only request was to make the survey/measurements by the advocate-commissioner as per the changed survey numbers, as given in the affidavit in support of the petition. 5. This Court is also of the view that if there was some doubt with respect to the maintainability of I.A.No.56 of 2025, the same should have been considered and decided after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, instead of returning the same by making endorsement ‘how this petition is maintainable’. 6. Considering the nature of the dispute, as also that the application has been returned by the Office of the learned Court, dispensing with the issuance of the notice to the respondent, this civil revision petition is being disposed of finally to meet the ends of justice, by directing that the petition I.A.No.56 of 2025 shall be considered on the judicial side by the learned Court, in accordance with law, with due opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff/respondent. 7. The original application I.A.No.56 of 2025, with the Order/report thereon of the Office of the learned Court filed with this civil revision petition shall be returned to the petitioner, as per the procedure for presentation in the learned trial Court. RNT, J CRP No.830 of 2025 4 8. The Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. _______________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 17.04.2025 Dsr Note: Furnish copy in one week. B/o Dsr