APHC010167542018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1934/2018 Between: Siddi Trimurthulu and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Samarla Venkata Lakshmi Sai Rangarao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. E V V S RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1968/2018 Between: Siddi Trimurthulu And 2 Others and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Samarla Venkata Lakshmi Sai Rangarao And Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 2 1. E V V S RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K B RAMANNA DORA 3 The Court made the following common order: As both the revision petitions are arising out of the same suit, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners filed suit in O.S.No.95 of 2012 for declaration of title and injunction against the respondents herein. During the pendency of suit, the petitioners filed an application seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to identify the suit schedule properties. The trial Court dismissed the said application, and the same was carried to this Hon’ble Court in a revision petition. The said revision petition was also dismissed. Thereafter, the suit was proceeded with the trial and after completion of the same, the matter was posted for arguments. At that juncture, the petitioners filed two applications vide I.A.Nos.1704 & 1705 of 2017, seeking to re-open the suit for further examination and to appoint Advocate Commissioner to localize the suit schedule properties. The trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed both the applications by order dated 02.02.2018. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present revision petitions are filed. 4 3. Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the respondents. 4. Perused the material available on record. 5. On a perusal of the orders passed by the trial Court, it is clear that earlier the petitioners had filed a similar application seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner, which was dismissed by the trial Court and subsequently the same was confirmed by this Court. The order passed by this Court had attained finality. Furthermore, after the trial is over, when the matter is posted for arguments, the petitioners filed the present applications despite the fact that the earlier applications had been dismissed by this Court. On a further perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, except stating that there is a dispute with regard to the identity of the properties, no material is placed on record to substantiate the same. As already stated, similar application was previously filed seeking to appoint Advocate Commissioner, and the same was dismissed by the trial Court and confirmed by this Court in earlier round of litigation. As the suit is filed for declaration of title and possession, the same can be proved by 5 adducing oral and documentary evidence. Further, the petitioner filed the applications under challenge at the belated stage when the matter is posted for arguments. Furthermore, as stated supra, the petitioners, having filed similar application, was unsuccessful in the earlier round of litigation before both the trial Court and this Court. There are no bonafidies on the part of the petitioners and orders impugned do not warrant interference of this Court. Accordingly both the revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.14.02.2025 DSB 6 74 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CRP Nos.1934 & 1968 of 2018 Date 14.02.2025 U DSB