i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1230 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed being aggrieved by the Order dt.23-04-2025 in I.A.Np.232 of 2025 in I.A.No.168 of 2025 in O.S.No.59 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kavali, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, Between: Yalavarthi Subhash Chandra Bose, S/o. Ngaiah, aged about 75 years, R/o. Musunuru Village, Kavali Mandal S.P.S.R.Nellore District. ...PETITIONER AND Bathula Ashok Kumar, S/o. Sivarami Reddy, aged about 62 years, R/o. Singarayakonda Village, SPSR Nellore District ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 59 of 2025 on the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kavali, the file of SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of the above Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent ;SRI. KOMARA PRUDHVI RAJ The Court made the following:Order a, ' APHC010258732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) -I [3327] FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1230/2025 Between; ...PETITIONER Yalavarthi Subhash Chandra Bose AND ...RESPONDENT Bathula Ashok Kumar Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KOMARA PRUDHVI RAJ The Court made the following; ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 23.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.232 of 2025 in I.A.No.168 of 2025 in O.S.No.59 of 2025 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), whereby the petition filed to appoint an advocate-commissioner to inspect the petition schedule property, note down the physical features and survey the lands of both parties as per rough sketch filed by the plaintiff with the help of Mandal Surveyor or qualified Surveyor, was dismissed. Kavali, 2 4. The material on record goes to show that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.59 of 2025 for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant and his men, relatives and assignees from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and making changes in respect of 20 feet width passage. The petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.168 of 2025 along with the suit seeking an ad interim injunction. In the said I.A., the petitioner/plaintiff also filed I.A.No.232 of 2025 under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. to appoint an advocate-commissioner to inspect the petition schedule property and note down the physical features and survey the lands of both parties as per rough sketch filed by the petitioner/plaintiff with the help of Mandal Surveyor or qualified surveyor, on the ground that originally the petitioner/plaintiff purchased Ac. 1.50 cents situated in Survey No.87 of Kavali Municipality and later he sold an extent of Ac.0.50 cents to the 2. respondent/defendant. In his remaining portion, there is a 20 feet width pathway and the respondent is having an easementary right over it but not testamentary right to ingress and egress in respect of the said passage which is abutting to the GNT road as shown in the rough sketch, respondent/defendant, for development of his Ac.0.50 cents of site, started highhandedly trying to change the physical features by removing iron gates in front of total Ac. 1.50 cents as his own exclusive way. petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit. Recently, the Hence, the 3 The respondent/defendant filed written statement and counters in the said suit and I.As. stating that the 20 feet width road mentioned in the rough sketch is exclusive passage to the respondent/defendant and he applied for power connection by installing electric poles in the said 20 feet width road with his own money and constructed a three portion house in his Ac.0.50 cents of land and the petitioner/plaintiff is causing obstructions in the 20 feet width road and annoyance to the respondent/defendant and his tenants. On the other hand, the petitioner/plaintiff has no necessity to use the 20 feet width road. 3. The trial Court, vide impugned order, dismissed I.A.No.232 of 2005 on the ground that the petitioner has shown the respondent property as the petition schedule property but he did not show the disputed 20 feet path way as the petition schedule property and appointing the advocate-commissioner in the facts of the case certainly leads to collection of evidence. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.232 of 2005, the present revision petition is filed. 4. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 5. Evidently, the dispute between the parties is with regard to 20 feet width passage in Survey No.87 but not the entire petition schedule property. The contention of the petitioner is that he sold an extent of Ac.0.50 cents out of Ac. 1.50 cents to the respondent/defendant under a registered sale deed and there is a pathway of 20 feet width in the middle of his total extent of Ac. 1.00 cents and that the respondent is having only easement right, but not testamentary right to ingress and egress in respect of the said passage. 6. / / 4 ■at* iS Whereas, the case of the respondent is that the 20 feet width road mentioned in the rough sketch is his exclusive passage and that the petitioner has no necessity to use the said 20 feet width passage. In view of the said reasons, to know the actual position with regard to 20 feet width passage, it is necessary to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect and note down the physical features in respect of 20 feet width passage and by appointing the advocate-commissioner for the said purpose, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/defendant. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned The trial Court is directed to appoint an advocate- commissioner only to the extent of noting down the physical features in respect of 20 feet width passage with the help of Mandal Surveyor. The trial Court shall fix fee of the Advocate Commissioner and the time for submission of report by the Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner, appointed, shall issue notice to both the parties with regard to his date of inspection and collect work memos, if any, from the parties and answer the same in his report. No order as to costs. 7. order is set aside. so As a sequel thereto. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in thisCivil Revision Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SECTI To, Division) Kavali, S.P.S.R. Nellore ^ The Principal Civil Judge (Junior District, 2. one CC to Sri. Sai Gangadhar Chamarty Advocate [OPUC] Prudhvi Raj Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Komara 4. Three CD Copies vna ^-0 # HIGH COURT DATED :09/05/2025 ORDER CRP.No.1230 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS