THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2485 OF 2024 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order, dated 19.06.2024, in I.A.No.773 of 2023 in O.S.No.18 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Nellore, whereby the petition filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs, under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants contended that appointment of the Advocate Commissioners for the purposes specified in the impugned order, is nothing but collection of evidence, which cannot be permitted. It is his submission that when it is the specific case of the respondents/plaintiffs that they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purposes specified, is not warranted and they have to establish their right on their own by 2 adducing evidence. It is also his contention that the petitioners/ defendants took a specific plea in the written statement that the sale deeds produced by the respondents/plaintiffs are forged and fabricated, and hence, an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of noting down the boundaries as per the sale deeds, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs submitted that the suit is filed for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction, and appointment of Advocate Commissioner is necessary to localize the schedule properties and to note down the constructions therein with boundaries with reference to the sale deeds, which does not amount to collection of evidence, and considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly allowed the petition, appointing Advocate Commissioner, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. A perusal of the record goes to show that the respondents/plaintiffs instituted O.S.No.18 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Nellore against the petitioners/defendants 3 seeking -to declare title of 1st plaintiff over the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with 1st plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint ‘A’ schedule property; & to declare 2nd plaintiff’s title over plaint ‘B’ schedule property and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with 2nd plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint ‘B’ schedule property. Plaint ‘A’ schedule property consists of 60 ankanams of site out of 432 ankanams equal to Ac.0.72 cents, comprised in Old Sy.No.1576/1009 CAS No.597/3 of Nellore Bit-I village, near D.No.1200 in Ward No.24-2 of Ravindra Nagar Area, Nellore Municipal Corporation limits, within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule. Plaint ‘B’ schedule property consists of 100 ankanams of site out of 432 ankanams equal to Ac.0.72 cents, comprised in Old Sy.No.1576/1009 CAS No.597/3 of Nellore Bit-I village, near D.No.1200 in Ward No.24-2 of Ravindra Nagar Area, Nellore Municipal Corporation limits, within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule. The petitioners/defendants filed written statement contending inter alia that the sale deeds presented by the respondents /plaintiffs are 4 forged and fabricated documents, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, etc. 6. During pendency of the suit, the respondents/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.773 of 2023 in the said suit, with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule sites and localize the same with past and present boundaries as per the documents and to measure ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule sites with the help of Town Planning Surveyor and to locate the land of Ac.0.62 cents comprised in old Sy.No.1849 and new Sy.No.1576/1012 equivalent to CAS No.599/1 of Nellore Bit-I and to measure the same, note down the existing building and also to note down the boundaries with reference to sale deed dated 30.01.1984 with reference to the records available in Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore. The said petition was allowed by the trial Court vide the impugned order, appointing Advocate Commissioner to inspect the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule sites and localize the same with reference to old and new survey numbers and to note down the boundaries with reference to sale deeds, to note the present location of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule lands, measure the same and also to locate the land of Ac.0.62 cents in old Sy.No.1849 5 and new sy.No.1576/1012 equivalent to CAS No.599/1 and to measure the same and to note down the existing constructions, boundaries with reference to sale deed 30.01.1984 with the help of City Planning Surveyor, Nellore with reference to the records available in Municipal Corporation, Nellore, and to file a report. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioners/ defendants. 7. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in, to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. It cannot be used as an appellate or revisional power. In short, as regards the findings of fact of inferior Court, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is limited only to the extent of examining whether the subordinate Court keeps itself within the 6 bounds of its authority in reaching a finding of fact. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and see that they do what their duty require and that they do in a legal manner. 8. Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. enables the Court to appoint Commissioner to hold local inspection for the purpose of elucidating the matter in dispute. The object of local investigation is not to collect evidence which can be adduced in Court. In other words, the purpose of Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. is not to assist a party in getting the evidence, which the party itself is required to adduce evidence. The above provision confers discretionary power on a Court to issue a commission for local investigation. The discretion has to be exercised judiciously. 9. In the case on hand, it is the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that they purchased the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties situated in old survey No.1849 and new survey No.1576/1012 which is equivalent to CAS No.597/3 of Nellore Bit-I, and the petitioners/ defendants purchased sites in CAS 599/1 under 7 various documents, but CAS No.597/3 was mentioned in a rectification deed which was created by vendors of the petitioners/defendants, and the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties were illegally occupied and small sheds were raised in 2015, and hence, in order to ascertain the said facts, appointment of the Advocate Commissioner is sought. Whereas, it is the case of the petitioners/defendants that the documents sought to be relied on, by the respondents/plaintiffs are forged and fabricated, and the said documents show that the land of petitioners/defendants is in CAS No.597/3 and that one Narayana Reddy is the owner of the property situated in CAS No.597/3 and without impleading him, even if Advocate Commissioner is appointed, the warrant cannot be executed. 10. It is a suit for declaration of title. The burden is on the respondents/plaintiffs to prove their case. However, since the petitioners/defendants also contend that the property purchased by them is also situated in CAS No.597/3, but not 599/1, as contended by the respondents/plaintiffs, location of the respective properties cannot be ascertained unless an Advocate Commissioner is appointed to survey with the assistance of Town Planning officials, and the same 8 would assist the Court in deciding the issues in controversy. Contention of the petitioners/defendants with regard to forgery and fabrication of the documents relied on by the respondents/plaintiffs, cannot be decided at this stage. The same has to be decided after full-fledged trial. 11. As regards the purpose of appointment of the Advocate Commissioner, the Advocate Commissioner can be appointed only to inspect the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule sites and localize the same with reference to the old and new survey numbers and to note down boundaries with reference to sale deeds and to note the present location of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule lands and measure the same, with the assistance of City Planning Surveyor, Nellore. However, the direction given to the Advocate Commissioner to locate the land Acs.0.62 cents in old Sy.No.1849 and new Sy.No.1576/1012 equivalent to CAS No.599/1 and to measure the same and to note down the existing constructions, boundaries with reference to sale deed dated 30.01.1984, is not warranted, as the same would amount to collection of evidence, and the same is set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified. 9 12. With the above modification, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs of the C.R.P. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________ K.SREENIVASA REDDY, J. 17 .04.2025 DRK 10 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2485 of 2024 17.4.2025 DRK