APHC010279772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1329/2025 Between: 1. SUNLOT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, FLAT NO. D101, MATRIX APARTMENTS, 100 FT ROAD, NEAR KAMINENI HOSPITAL PORANKI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT REP BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY EDUPUGANTI NARENDRA PRASAD. 2. GENERAL SECRETARY AND CORRESPONDENT SUNLOT EDUCATIONAL SOCEITY., FLAT NO. D101, MATRIX APARTMENTS, 100 FT ROAD, NEAR KAMINENI HOSPITAL PORANKI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. MANNE VENKATA SUBRAHMANYAM, S/o Venakata Rama Rao, aged about 64 years R/o Rama Rao Street, Gunadala, Vijayawada - 520004 ...RESPONDENT 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 topleased to allow this CRP and set aside the order dated 06-05- 2025 passed in I.A. No.806 of 2023 in O.S. No. 41 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the VII Addl. District Judge at Vijayawada in the interests of justice IA 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 pleased to suspend the order dated 06-05-2025 passed in I.A. No.806 of 2 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1329 of 2025) 2023 in O.S. No. 41 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the VII Addl. District Judge: at Vijayawada pending disposal of this CRP and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M RADHAKRISHNA 3 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1329 of 2025) The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri G.Rama Chandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants, Sri M.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, and perused the material on record. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.41 of 2021 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, seeking ejectment of the petitioners/defendants from the plaint schedule property. In the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.806 of 2023 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The petitioners/defendants filed a counter affidavit opposing the same. 3. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Court allowed the application, observing that "if the petition is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for appointment of Advocate Commissioner as sought for." 4. Except for the foregoing observation, no other reasoning has been assigned in support of the order. While the facts and objections have been recited under Point No.6, it appears that the trial Court has relied solely on the said reasoning in granting the application. 5. On 05.06.2025, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted an interim order staying further proceedings in the suit. 4 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1329 of 2025) 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order does not deal with the provisions of Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’), and that the application has been allowed without recording proper reasons or satisfying the preconditions under law. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly concedes that the order is bereft of reasons and submits that it may be set aside and the matter be remanded for fresh consideration, in accordance with law. 8. Order 26 Rule 9 CPC reads as under: "9. Commissions to make local investigations.— In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court” 9. The application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is required to be considered in accordance with the above provisions. The Court has to be satisfied that the local investigation is requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating the matter in dispute. Such a satisfaction should be recorded based on consideration of facts and the material on record. So, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners’ merits acceptance, as the impugned order is devoid of recording any such satisfaction in consonance with the statutory requirements. The mere 5 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1329 of 2025) observation that "no prejudice will be caused" cannot be the sole ground for allowing such an application. 10. Considering the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed at this stage. The order dated 06.05.2025 passed in I.A.No 806 of 2023 in O.S.No.41 of 2021 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, is hereby set aside. The learned trial Court shall reconsider and decide I.A.No.806 of 2023 afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date : 11.07.2025. RPD. 6 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1329 of 2025) 142 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI (DISPOSED OF) CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1329 OF 2025 Date : 11.07.2025 RPD.