APHC010349312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1683 OF 2025 Between: 1. Perumalapalli Santhayya,, S/o.Yesurathnam, aged about 56 years, R/o.D.No.16-7-14, Poornandampet, Vijayawada. NTR District. 2. Perumalapalli Khadar,, Munnisa, W/o.Perumalapalli Santhayya, aged about 48 years, R/o.D.No.16-7-14, Poornandampet, Vijayawada, NTR District. ...Petitioners AND 1. Ponnapalli Yalamanda, S/o.Ramulu, aged about 48 years, R/o.D.No.43-8-19/1, American Hospital Road, Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada, NTR District. 2. Golla Seetha Ramayya, S/o.Punnaiah, aged about 56 years, R/o.D.No.43-8-19/1, American Hospital Road, Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada, NTR District. 3. Godavarthi Ashhok Kumar, S/o.Madhava, aged about 60 years, R/o.D.No. 16-7-14, Poornandampet, Vijayawada, NTR District. ...Respondents 2 Counsel for the Petitioners: SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri K.V.M.Chiranjeevi, learned counsel representing Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The respondents 1 and 2(plaintiffs) filed O.S.No.746 of 2017 against the appellants (defendants 1 and 2) and the 3rd respondent (3rd defendant). 3. The suit was decreed against all the defendants on 13.12.2021. 4. Challenging the said decree, the defendants 1 and 2 filed A.S.No.10 of 2022, which is pending in the Court of the XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. In the said appeal, the 3rd defendant in the suit is the 3rd respondent. 5. In the appeal, the appellants(defendants 1 and 2) filed I.A.No.107 of 2022, to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features and to take measurements of the plaint schedule property with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor. The said application has been dismissed by order dated 11.09.2024. 6. Challenging the said order dated 11.09.2024, the present C.R.P has been filed. 3 7. The learned appellate Court observed that the first commissioner was appointed and filed the report in the trial Court. So, the second commissioner need not be appointed and if pending appeal, the respondents make any construction altering the physical features of the schedule property, the same would be at the risk and responsibility of those respondents only and they would not be able to plead equities. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the rejection of the application is not justified. He submits that in the suit, an order to appoint an advocate commissioner was passed but the warrant could not be executed and without such execution, the report was submitted that it could not be executed. He submits that since it could not be executed before the trial Court, the application filed by the petitioners in the appeal was in fact, the first application, for issuance of commission. But, the learned appellate Court, considering it as for the second time, rejected the application observing that the advocate commission could not be issued without expunging the earlier report. 9. On a specific query made to the learned counsel for the petitioners, he submits that A.S.No.10 of 2022 has been filed by defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The 3rd defendant has not filed the appeal. He submits that the application for commission in the trial Court was filed by the 3rd defendant and not by defendants 1 and 2. He further submits that against the report of the advocate commissioner, 4 the 3rd defendant did not file any objection nor requested before the trial Court for execution of the warrant or to issue fresh commission. 10. This Court finds that there is no illegality in the order of the learned appellate Court in rejecting the application for commissioner. Additionally, for the reason that the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 did not file any application before the trial Court. The application was filed only by the 3rd defendant, who has not preferred the appeal. The defendants 1 and 2 also did not object to the report that the commission could not be conducted. They did not press before the learned trial Court for issuance of commission or for execution of the warrant issued on the application of the 3rd defendant. The prayer as made in the application is to appoint the advocate commissioner to note down the physical features and to make measurements of the plaint schedule property. If it was so required, an application to that effect could have been made by the present appellants/defendants 1 and 2 in the trial Court itself, or they could have requested the trial court to issue fresh commission or to get the warrant already issued, executed. 11. I do not find it a fit case for interference at this stage of the proceedings. 12. However, if during the course of the appeal, the appellate court finds that there is need to issue the advocate commissioner in terms of the Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C to enable the Court to elucidate any matter 5 in dispute or an expungation of the earlier report, fresh commission is needed, it shall be open to that Court to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 13. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, with the aforesaid observations. No order as to costs. 14. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 18.07.2025 Pab 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1683 of 2025 Date:- 18.07.2025 Pab