APHC010199452022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.829/2022 Between: 1. GANDHAVARAPU NOOKA RAJU, , S/O LATE SIMHACHALAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 28-19-24, R.H.COLONY, KANITHI COLONY, VADLAPUDI, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KOVVURI UDAYA BHASKARA REDDY, S/O.SUBBI REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1- 175, ALLAPATI NAGAR, PALANGI UNDRAJAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. R/O D.NO. 33-1- 27/1, ALLIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM . 2. KOVVURI VENKATA DHANA LAKSHMI, W/O. KOVVURI UDAYA BHASKARA REDDY HINDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1- 175, ALLAPATI NAGAR, PALANGI UNDRAJAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. R/O D.NO. 33-1-27/1, ALLIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM . ...RESPONDENT(S) 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 to Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition before this Hon'ble Court being aggrieved by the order and decree dt.28-03-2022 made in I.A.No.156 OF 2022 IN O.S.No.261 OF 2016 on the file of The Court Of PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GAJUWAKA, VISAKHPATNAM, for the following among other IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 of all further proceedings IN IA.No. 156 of 2022 in O.S.No.261 OF 2016 on the file of The Court Of PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GAJUWAKA, VISAKHPATNAM, dated 28-03-2022 pending disposal of the above CRP and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. REDDY VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.829 of 2022 ORDER: - 1. The present revision petition is filed questioning order dated 28.03.2022 passed in IA No.156 of 2022 in OS No.261 of 2016, on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the above application under order 26 Rule 9 r/w. 151 CPC praying to appoint Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical measurements of the suit schedule property i.e., the length and breadth to calculate the total extent of the suit schedule property. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed suit in OS No.261 of 2016 to cancel a registered sale deed dated 30.08.2008 executed by the petitioner/plaintiff in favour of respondents/defendants. When the suit is posted for arguments of the petitioner/plaintiff, the present application is filed on the premise that there is a total extent of 157 sq. yards on ground and out of which his brother is the owner of an extent of 50 sq. yards. He would further submit that as the DW-1 deposed that he has purchased an extent of 107 sq. yards from the petitioner, in order to prove that there is an extent of 157 sq. yards, on ground, the present application is filed to note down the physical measurements of the suit schedule property. 4. On the other hand, a counter affidavit is filed by the respondents stating that the present application is filed only to drag on the proceedings and it is not necessary to appoint advocate commissioner in the matter, in as much as the documents filed along with the suit and the written statement would speak for itself. 5. Heard counsel for the petitioner. 6. Perused material available on record. 7. On a reading of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is clear that the suit is posted for arguments. At that stage the present application is filed seeking to appoint advocate Commissioner to note down the physical measurements of the suit schedule property. The suit is filed for cancellation of sale deed. The petitioner has filed copy of the sale deed, which is marked as Ex.A1. Further, the defendants have filed the original sale deed in dispute, which is marked as Ex.B2. 8. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the extent of property is 107 sq. yards. Further, the boundaries mentioned in both the documents are one and the same. Further, though it is stated by the petitioner that the total extent on ground is 157 sq. yards and out of which 50 sq. yards standing in the name of his brother Sri Gandhavarapu Pyidiraju, no documentary proof is placed on record to substantiate the same. 9. When there is no dispute with regard to the extent and boundaries of the suit schedule property, there is no necessity to file the present application. The Trial Court having considered the case of the petitioner rightly dismissed the said application. This Court does not find any illegality order impugned. 10. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 11.07.2025 KPV/DR 327 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.829 OF 2022 Date:11.07.2025 KPV/DR