APHC010352042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the twenty fourth day of July two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: Between: B. Gopalakrishna H. Janardhan Reddy and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Matada Yuvasiva Swamy Counsel for the Respondents: 1. G.R. Sudhakar The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the twenty fourth day of July two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 1689 of 2025 ...Petitioner and H. Janardhan Reddy and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Matada Yuvasiva Swamy Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: [3311] Thursday, the twenty fourth day of July two thousand and twenty five ...Petitioner Respondents 2 C.R.P. No. 1689 of 2025 O R D E R: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.05.2025, allowing I.A.No.209 of 2025 in O.S.No.93 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yemmiganur, Kurnool District filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXVI, Rule 9 and Section 151 of C.P.C. to appoint an advocate commissioner to identify the suit schedule property as per the registered sale deed dated 03.08.1988 with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor, Mantralayam. 2. The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction, contending that the father of the 1st plaintiff by name H.Shankar Reddy @ Shankar Gouda purchased the plaint schedule property under the above said registered sale deed from B.Lakshmidevamma and took possession of the same and after his death, the plaintiffs succeeded the said property. The defendant is the son of B.Lakshmidevamma. The mother of the defendant died. She, through her husband who was her general power of attorney holder dated 23.07.1986 sold away the lands in S.No.251 to an extent of Ac.06.02 cents in Madhavaram village by dividing the property into house site plots. Though the defendant is aware of the registered sale deed in favour of H.Shankar Reddy, filed a false suit in O.S.No.168 of 2023 seeking permanent injunction in respect of land of Ac.0.57 cents in S.No.251/1 within the boundaries on east: Adoni to Raichur Road, west: Talari Narasimha and Thimmapuram Narayani, north: Plots road, south: Ediga Raghanna and Thimmapuram Narayani. The above said property is not in existence. The defendant obtained ex parte interim injunction in the said suit. Taking advantage of the interim order, the defendant is encroaching into the plaint schedule property. Under these circumstances, the suit is filed and the petition is filed to appoint Commissioner as aforesaid. 3 C.R.P. No. 1689 of 2025 3. The petition was opposed by filing counter denying the averments and further stating that the petitioners / plaintiffs have not filed any document to prove possession and enjoyment and that the father of the plaintiffs could not identify the exact portion of the land and in fact he had applied for survey through File No.FL/12126/2022, dated 07.03.2022 and pursuant thereto survey was conducted on 17.04.2022 and the record shows that the father of the plaintiffs was not in possession and could not identify the property. Despite the factual position, the present petition was filed only to stall the construction activity and pressurize the respondent / defendant. The petitioners are guilty of suppression of material facts and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the petition holding that it is necessary to appoint an advocate commissioner to determine the dispute in the suit and arrive at a just conclusion in both suits. 5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the father of the plaintiffs had already got the property surveyed and could not identify the property and therefore, there is no use in getting another survey done. He further submitted that the appointment of commissioner is nothing but collection of evidence, and therefore, commissioner should not be appointed. He placed reliance on the decision of this High Court in Batchu Narayana Rao Vs. Batchu Venkata Narasimha Rao1, wherein it was observed at paragraph No.7 as follows: “Time and again this Court held that a Commissioner cannot be appointed to gather evidence for and on behalf of any party. It is for the party concerned, to establish its case and the feasibility of appointing a Commissioner will be considered, if the 1 2010 (5) ALD 83 4 C.R.P. No. 1689 of 2025 Court feels that inspection and further enquiry is necessary, having regard to the uncertainty, that came into existence, after the trial has progressed to certain extent. In the instant case, the respondent not only wanted the Commissioner to identify the suit schedule property and fix the boundaries thereof, but also to file a report, as to his possession over the land in R.S.No.532/1 of that Village and the one in possession of a person who is not a party to the suit.” 7. It also settled law that an advocate can be appointed as commissioner to take measurements and identify the property with the help of a surveyor where there is dispute of identity of the property, to resolve the dispute. A commissioner cannot be appointed only to gather evidence. However, for the purpose of noting down the factual aspects, a commissioner can be appointed. 8. In the present case, the schedule of the properties mentioned in both suits are different in respect of extent and boundaries. Since the suit is filed not only for permanent injunction, but also for declaration of title and recovery of possession, it is very much required to appoint a commissioner. Therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error in appointing a commissioner. 9. Thus, there is no ground to interfere with the order impugned in the revision petition. 10. In the result, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.24.07.2025 PNV