APHC010523982024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, the eighth day of April, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 2851/2024 Between: R. Ratnam (died by his Lrs.) and others ...Petitioners and R.Pusparatnamma ...Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: 1. K Raghu Veer Counsel for the respondent: Nil The Court made the following Order: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 08.11.2024 dismissing I.A.No.80 of 2024 in I.A.No.154 of 2023 in O.S.No.10 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool-cum-Judge, Family Court, Kurnool filed under section 151 CPC by the defendants to direct the advocate commissioner already appointed in I.A.No.154 of 2023 to strictly follow the warrant entrusted to him and carryon the inspection, 2 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2851 of 2024 only if the properties mentioned in the warrant schedule should be located on the ground as they are described in the schedule. 2. The respondent filed suit for partition and the preliminary decree was passed in the suit. The commissioner was appointed in the final decree proceedings. Warrant was issued by the Court. Thereafter, work memo was submitted by the defendants with the points as below: “The advocate commissioner is requested to observe and note the following, during his visit to the petition schedule properties:- (1) The Advocate Commissioner is requested to strictly follow the directions of the Hon’ble Court, given in the commissioner warrant issued to you, by the Hon’ble Court. (2) The Commissioner is requested to strictly observe correctness of the survey number, extent and boundaries mentioned in the warrant schedule, and also requested to not to proceed with your inspection, in respect of such properties, in which there is discrepancy, in the survey number, extent or boundaries in respect of any of those properties on ground. In case of noticing any such discrepancy, you may please advise the petitioners to seek necessary directions from the Hon’ble Court, regarding those discrepancies. (3) Regarding item No.(1) please notice that the land on ground is in “U” shape whereas, the petitioners have given only four boundaries, as if it is in a square or rectangle shape. If such description is taken as correct, there is a 3 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2851 of 2024 damages of the land of third parties, lying in the “U” shaped land, likely to be included in that property. Even the extent of the said land is also not tallying with the land on ground. (4) Regarding Item No.(2) please observe that the land consists of two portions of land on ground, which are intervened by ‘Handri Niva Canal’, and as such the boundaries in the petition schedule are not tallying on ground. Even the extent of land is also not tallying. (5) Regarding Item No.(3), please observe that the boundaries and extent that are not shown correctly, and the land with those particulars given in the schedule are not traceable on grounds. (6) Regarding Item No.(4) please observe that the land is not in a regular square or rectangular shape as described in the schedule and as such the boundaries shown in the schedule are incorrect. (7) Regarding Item No.(6) please observe that the boundaries are not shown with celerity and precision, and as such, the exact location of the land cannot be identified on ground. Even the extent mentioned in the schedule is also not tallying on ground. (8) Regarding Item No.(7) please observe that the boundaries and extent of land mentioned in the schedule are not at all tallying on ground. (9) Regarding Item No.(8) please observe that the boundaries and extent of the land mentioned in the schedule are not at all existing on ground. It’s actual extent on ground is only Ac.0-88 cents. 4 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2851 of 2024 (10) Regarding Item No.(9) please observe that there is no land available on ground, with the particulars mentioned in the schedule. (11) Please observe and note such other further particulars that would be brought to your notice, at the time of your inspection. 3. The advocate commissioner fixed date of inspection and started inspecting the properties. Though the counsel for the defendants pointed to the commissioner many discrepancies in the survey numbers, extents and boundaries mentioned in the petition schedule and to answer the work memo, the commissioner was not proceeding strictly in accordance with the warrant and expressed his intention to go ahead with the inspection irrespective of the discrepancies. The commissioner orally directed the petitioner to make representation to the Court and get direction from the Court on their objections. Hence, the petition was filed. 4. The respondent / plaintiff filed counter resisting the petition as follows: The respondent denied the allegation that the petitioners’ counsel submitted work memo and requested to strictly follow the commissioner’s warrant issued by the Court. It is further denied about bringing to the notice of the commissioner that there are many discrepancies in survey numbers and extents and boundaries in the petition schedule; that inspite of petitioners objections put forth orally, the advocate commissioner expressed that he would go ahead with the inspection even when there are 5 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2851 of 2024 discrepancies in the schedule; and that the petitioners were advised to file this petition. The delay was caused for surveying the lands shown in the warrant schedule. Actually, the advocate commissioner took the work memo of the respondents and he would give answers to their work memo. Inspite of that, the 5th petitioner came to the warrant schedule locality and unnecessary preventing the advocate commissioner and also the surveyor in order to stall the execution of warrant work to achieve illegal designs. There are no discrepancies at the warrant schedule properties as alleged by the petitioners. Hence, petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that it is for the commissioner to execute warrant of the Court and if there are discrepancies, in the schedule, the commissioner is the right person to bring them to the knowledge of the Court by filing a report and if there are any objections to the report, the petitioners have a right to file their objections, but at this juncture, on those grounds they cannot, file this present application. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. As the trial Court rightly observed that the petitioners can file objections to the report of the commissioner, it is premature to seek the relief, moreover the prayer is to give direction to the commissioner to strictly follow the direction in the warrant. In fact no such direction is necessary as the warrant itself is a direction strictly to be followed. As the petitioners have already submitted 6 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2851 of 2024 points in the work memo to be answered by the commissioner, they have to wait till the report of the commissioner is filed. Thereafter, the trial Court would hear on the objections, if any filed by the parties, and take further action as per the necessity. If the commissioner even with the aid of the surveyor also finds it difficult to identify the land, the same can be reported to the Court, or if any discrepancies which the petitioners pointed out are found by the commissioner, the same can be reported by the commissioner. But before any response from the commissioner, it is not necessary to give any further directions to the commissioner. 8. As such, the civil revision petition is disposed of with the above said observations. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. _____________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J Date:08.04.2025 GRL 7 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2851 of 2024 115 THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI C.R.P No.2851 of 2024 Date: 08.04.2025 8 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2851 of 2024 GRL