IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5224 OF 2018 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1297 OF 2023 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5224 OF 2018 Between: 1. Midde Khaja Mohiddin, S/o late Rasool Saheb, aged about 45 years, R/o 27-126-7, Neelithotia Veedhi, Atmakur, Kurnool District 2. Midde Jailani, S/o late Rasool Saheb, aged about 60 years, R/o H.No.13-72, Reading Room Street, Atmakur, Kurnool District 3. Midde Mahaboob Basha, S/o late Rasool Saheb, aged about 64 years, R/o H.No.26-81, Kothapeta, Atmakur, Kurnool District. ...Petitioner / Respondents 1-3 / Defendants 1-3 AND 1. Bollavaram Anasuyamma, D/o Chinna Sunkanna, W/o late Devadanam, aged about 75 years, R/o H.No.86/385/2, Flat No.43, FCI Colony, B- Camp, Kurnool Town 2. Musalimadugu Jeelani, S/o late Ibrahim, aged about 58 years, R/o H.No.25-92, Kothapeta, Atmakur, Kurnool District 3. Musalimadugu Shall Bee, W/o Jeelani, aged about 47 years, R/o H.No.25-92, Kothapeta, Atmakur, Kurnool District ...Respondents / Petitioners / Plaintiffs V . ’ 4. Shaik Ishrath Jaha, W/o Dada Basha, aged about 40 years, R/o H.No.62/229, Chidambara Rao Street, Kurnool Town. ...Respondents / Respondents - 4 / Defendant - 4 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved Dy the order dated 6.6.2018 passed inlA.No. 246 of 2017 in O.S.No. 66 of 2017 by the learned Civil (Senior Division) Judge, Atmakur, KurnopI District lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to suspend the order dated 06-06-2018 passed in IA.No.246 of 2017 in O.S.no.66 of 2017 by the learned Sr. Civil Judge Atmakur Kurnool Dist pending disposal of the CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. DASANI VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI. C PRAKASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1297 OF 2023 Between: 1. Midde Khaja Mohiddin, S/o late Rasool Saheb, aged about 45 years, Agriculture. Muslim H.No.27-126-7. Neelithotia Veedhi, Atmakur, Kurnool District. 2. Midde Jailani, S/o late Rasool Saheb, aged about 60 years, Muslim, Tire rebutting shop, R/o H.No. 13-72, Reading Room Veedhi, Atmakur. Kurnool District. 3. Midde Mahaboob Basha, S/o late Rasool Saheb, aged about 64 years, Muslim, Working in Saw Mill, H.No.26-81, Kothapeta, Atmakur, Kurnool District. ...Petitioner / Respondents 1-3 / Defendants 1-3 AND 1. Smt. Bollavaram Anasuyamma,, D/o Chinna Sunkanna, died by L.Rs.4 2. Musalimadugu Jeelani, , S/o late Ibrahim, aged 63 years. Agriculture, R/o H.No.25-92, Kothapeta. Atmakur. Kurnool District 3. Smt Musalimadugu Shali Bee, W/oo Musalimadugu Jeelani, Muslim, aged about 52 years. House wife, R/o H.No.25-92, Kothapeta, Atmakur, Kurnool District 4. Kanaka Leelamma, W/o Late Kanaka Bhikshulu. Hindu, aged 74 years. House wife-cum-Agriculture, R/o H.No.86/385/2, Food Corporation of India Colony, Near B.Camp, Dinnedevarapadu. Kurnool Dist. ...Respondents / Petitioners / Plaintiffs 5. Smt Shaik Ishrath Jaha, W/o Dada Basha, aged 40 years, Muslim, House wife, H.No.62/229, Chidambara Rao Street, Kurnool post and District ...Respondent / Respondent -4 / Defendant -4 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 set aside the order dated 26th August, 2022 passed in IA.No.110 of 2022 in O.S.No.66 of 2017 by the learned Civil (Senior Division) Judge, Atmakur, Nandyala District. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 to suspend the order dated 26-08-2022 passed in I.A.No.110 of 2022 in O.S.No.66/2017 by the learned Civil (Senior Division) Judge, Atmakur, Nandyala District. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. DASANI VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. C PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER APHC010669522018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3460] (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDA Y, THE TWELFTH DA Y OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY ViJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5224/2018 Between: Midde Khaja Mohiddin and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Bollavaram Anasuyamma and Others CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1297/2023 ...RESPONDENT(S) Between: Midde Khaja Mohiddin and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Smt Bollavaram Anasuyamma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. DASANI VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. C PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.R.P.No.5224 of 2018 And C.R.P.No.1297 of 2023 COMMON ORDER: CRP.No.5224 of 2018 is filed questioning the order dated 06.06.2018 in I.A.No.246 of 2017 in O.S.No.66 of 2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. The I.A. was filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. 2. CRP.No.1297 of 2023 is filed questioning the order dated 26.08.2022 in I.A.No.110 of 2022 in O.S.No.66 of 2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Nandyal District. The I.A. was filed under Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC for re-entrustment of the warrant of the commission to the Advocate Commissioner. 3. Petitioners are Defendants 1 to 3. Respondents 1 to 3 are the Plaintiffs and suit was filed to declare the encroached portion i.e. item Nos.4 5 and 6 of suit schedule property shown as “Cl DEI F' E1FG1H1” and LIU IK” respectively as part and parcel of item Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the suit schedule and to direct the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 to deliver possession of the encroached portion. V 2 4. In the said suit, Plaintiffs filed I.A.No.246 of 2017 to appoint Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit schedule property and fix the boundaries of the Plaintiffs and Defendants as per revenue records and also registered documents with the help of District Surveyor, Kurnool. It pleaded that the reason for filing the application was on account of boundary dispute, which necessitated the institution of the suit. The said application was opposed. as per was 5. The trial Court, vide orders dated 06.06.2018, after referring to the case law, allowed the said application and appointed an Advocate Commissioner since the crux of the dispute in the suit is encroachment of certain portions of lands of the Plaintiffs. Questioning the C.R.P.No.5224 of 2018 was filed. same 6. As the interim stay granted in the Civil Revision Petition had lapsed, the Advocate Commissioner executed the warrant and submitted a report to the trial Court. As the Advocate Commissioner's report was not satisfactory and did not achieve the desired purpose, the Plaintiffs filed I.A.No.110 of 2022, seeking to re-direct the Commissioner to measure the land as per the sale deeds and revenue records as ordered by the trial Court in the earlier application. In the application filed by the Plaintiffs/Respondents 1 to 3, it contended that the Advocate Commissioner did not conduct the survey with reference to the registered documents of both the parties at the time of 7. was 3 r ¥ inspection in spite of specific direction of the trial Court in I.A.No.246 of 2017. The further reason was that the warrants specifically stated 6 items, whereas the Commissioner has shown only 4 items (Items 4 to 6 of the Defendants as part and parcel of their land) in his plan and failed to measure the lands of the Plaintiffs and Defendants as per the respective sale deeds and revenue records and also failed to draw the plan. The Petitioners filed counter disputing the same. However, the trial f Court vide order dated 26.08.2022 allowed the I.A and re-entrusted the warrant to the Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit schedule property and measure the same with the help of documents of both the parties with the assistance of District Surveyor, Karivena. Questioning the order dated 26.08.2022, C.R.P.No.1297 of 2023 is filed. 8. 9. Heard Sri Dasani Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the very appointment of Advocate Commissioner cannot be sustained at the inception stage of the suit and no valid reasons were provided by the trial Court for re-entrusting the warrant to the very same Advocate Commissioner. The counsel for the Respondents contended that the nature of the suit is such that there is a requirement of appointing the Advocate Commissioner at the earliest, so that the parties and the court are made aware of the ground scenario vis-a-vis the title deeds on respective parties. 4 Be that as it may, both the counsels jointly submitted that the Advocate Commissioner had submitted a report pursuant to the orders in 11. I.A.No.246 of 2017 and also in I.A.No.110 of 2022. As the Advocate Commissioner had submitted reports on both occasions, this Court is not inclined to examine the necessity of appointment of Advocate Commissioner at this stage as the warrant is already executed. It is open to the parties to the suit to raise their objections with regard to the Advocate Commissioner report and contest the correctness of the same in the trial Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No order as 13. to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR fr Sr //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Civil (Senior Division) Judge, Atmakur, KurnopI District (with records) 2. One CC to Sri. Dasani Venkata Ramana Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. C Prakash Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 5. Three CD Copies PR vna HIGH COURT DATED:12/02/2025 ? 17 MAR 2025 ^ . Current Section . XieSPATCttgs<< a COMMON ORDER CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5224 OF 2018 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1297 OF 2023 DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS