APHC010396802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1982/2025 Between: 1. RAJANA PRASADA RAO, A ...PETITIONER AND 1. LAVETI MURALIDHAR, A ...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 to 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VUNDAVALLI JAGADISH VC Counsel for the Respondent: 1. Page 2 of 4 The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above revision petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2025 in I.A.No.236 of 2025 in O.S.No.33 of 2019 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponduru. 2. Heard Sri V. Jagadish, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 3. One Smt. Rajana Suramma filed a suit in O.S.No.33 of 2019 against the defendants seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the scheduled property of an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.60/9 of Ullivalasa Village, G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District. Pending the suit, due to ill-health, the son of the plaintiff represented her as the General Power of Attorney holder. 4. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.236 of 2025 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner for local inquiry and fixing boundaries to the suit schedule property. A counter affidavit was filed opposing the said application. The Trial Court, by order dated 01.07.2025, dismissed the application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court failed to consider the aspect of dismantling the compound all. He would also submit that, in fact, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner would assist the Court in adjudicating the dispute judiciously. 6. As seen from the averments in the plaint, the suit was filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the property. In para No.8 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was pleaded that the defendants once again made big holes in the ground underneath the compound wall and tried to dismantle the compound wall. Thus, the plaintiff is requesting the Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to fix the boundaries of the suit schedule property and for a local inquiry. 7. It is a settled principle of law that in any suit filed for injunction, the plaintiff has to prove possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The relief sought by the petitioner to fix boundaries is beyond the scope of the prayer in the suit. In fact, the petitioner intends to gather evidence by making applications. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the civil revision petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 14.08.2025 TVN 255 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1982 OF 2025 Date: 14.08.2025 TVN