IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 542 OF 2023 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dt. 15-11-2022 in I.A No. 370/2020 in O.S.No.268/2020 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku. Between: Pilli Narasimhulu, S/o. Raja Rao, Hindu, Male, aged about 41 years. Represented by his wife, G.P.A. Holder Pilli Martha Kumari, Hindu, Female, aged about 32 years. House wife, D.No.3-126, Polamuru Village, Penumantra Mandal, West Godavari District, A.P ...Petitioner/Plaintiff/Petitioner AND 1. Yadlapalli Indira Kumari, W/o. Raja Ratnam, House wife, aged about 29 years, D.No.24-A-3-31. Ameenapet, Eluru, West Godavari District, A.P. 2. Paruvu Nagaratnam, (Died) 3. Menedi Suryanarayana, S/o. Pothu Raju, R/o. D.No. 3-120, Jammucheruvu Village, Polamuru Village, Penumantra Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Respondents/Defendants/Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2023 ^ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances ' -tStated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct to appoint advocate commissioner to break open the locks put up by the 1st respondent /1st defendant to the Eastern shed tiled house portion with its appurtenant shed together with its bathrooms etc., of the 1st item schedule property premises by ordering to make out inventory/release and hand over the household articles etc., to me/petitioner/plaintiff herein and to pass i lA NO: 20F 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 grant interim stay of trial of suit in O.S.No.268/2020 on the file of 1st Additional Junior civil Judge, Tanuku. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI G.V.ANAND KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010684552022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 542/2023 Between: ...PETITIONER Pilli Narasimhulu AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Yadlapalli Indira Kumari and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KSUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.G.V.ANAND KUMAR The Court made the following: JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY -I'f,, PPVIRION PETITIONm542o^S23 the honourable SRI ORDER: inq the Order 2020 in ior Civil Judge, Tanuku, The present Civi, Revision petition is filed question,ng 1. of i.A.No.370 15.11.2022 passed 2020 by the I Additional Junior in dated O.S.No.268 of West Godavari District. The Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff in the suit. 2. are as follows The brief facts of the case 3. filed for partition of item No.1 The suit O.S.No.268 of 2020 was and for declaration of absolute title in plaint schedule property No.2 and for other l including appointment of of the consequential reliefs to remove the un-authorized locks put by the side portion and its appurtenant shed mentioned in reply filed their written item Advocate Commissioner Defendant No.1 to the eastern to handover the household articles as etc., so as dated 23.07.2019. The statement disputing Defendants/Respondents the claim of the Petitioner. is of the suit is as follows:- The genesis 4. p. Prabhakar had The Plaintiffs senior paternal uncle by name extent of Ac.0.03 Government employee and had an containing two portions with its appurtenant wet land of an worked as a cents with a tiled house also having a double crop tin sheet sheds and was , Penmantra Mandal, West his wife two cents at Polamuru Village extent of Ac.0.31 Godavari p. Naga Late P. Prabhakar during of p. Prabhakar i District. After the death till her death. schedule properties Ratnam enjoyed the his life time used to personally cultivating the I agricultural land and Defendant No.3 was working under his supervision. Late P. Prabhakar got a share in item No.1 and full extent of item No.2 vide registered Will dated 21.10.2017. Thereafter, the Plaintiff succeeded to the properties under the Will. Subsequently, Plaintiff had taken physical possession of item No.1 to the extent of the share of late P. Prabhakar and the wife and children of Plaintiff were residing therein as the Plaintiff was working in Arab Countries. The Defendant No.1 and her husband trespassed into item No.1 of the schedule property by putting lock though a complaint was said to have been given by the wife of the Plaintiff against the Defendant No.1 and her husband. Therefore, the suit was filed for the above mentioned reliefs. 5. 6. The Defendants filed their written statements disputing the claim. It was pleaded that the Defendant No.2 was adopted by late P. Prabhakar and his wife vide registered Adoption Deed bearing document No. 10/1991 and the educational certificates of Defendant No.2 also show that late P. Prabhakar was his father. 7. In the course of suit proceedings, the Petitioner/Plaintiff filed the above I.A for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to break open the un-authorized locks so as to enable the Commissioner to make out an inventory/release and handover the household articles and utensils. The said application was allowed on contest. Questioning the same, the Respondents filed I.A.No.541 of 2021 before this Court. This Court allowed the same for proper adjudication as regards the ownership and details of utensils claimed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff. On remand, the trial Court dismissed the application vide Order dated 15.11.2022 and hence the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3 Heard Sri K.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri G.V. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents. 8. The relief claimed by the Petitioner is for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The trial Court had dismissed the I.A only on the ground that the relief claimed in the application is also one of the reliefs sought in the suit and therefore appointment of Advocate Commissioner amounts to a pre-trial decree. The appointment of Advocate Commissioner in the present case is only to break open the locks and making an inventory and to handover the utensils to the Petitioners. The said relief is not determinative to the claims of the respective parties to the suit. Many a time, the interlocutory order and final relief are similar like in an injunction suit and that by itself is not a ground to deny relief if a prima facie case is made out as in this case. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deoraj vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors^ held at Paragraph 12 as follows:- 9. “12. Situations emerge where the granting of an interim relief would tantamount to granting the final relief itself And then there may be converse cases where withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of the main petition itself; for, by the time the main matter up for hearing there would be nothing left to be allowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings may be in his favour. In such cases the availability of a very strong prima facie case - of a standard much higher than just prima facie case, the considerations of balance of and irreparable injury forcefully titling the balance of the case totally in favour of the applicant may persuade the court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting the final relief itself Of course, such would be rare and exceptional cases. The court would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied withholding of it would prick the conscience of the court and do violence to the sense of justice. comes convenience v ^ (2004) 4 see 697 = 2004 See Online Se 442 4 resulting in injustice being perpetuated through the hearing, and at the end the court would not be able to vindicate the case of justice. Obviously such would be rare cases accompanied by compelling circumstances, where the injury complained of is immediate and pressing and would cause extreme hardship. The conduct of the parties shall also have to be seen and the court may put the parties on such terms as may be prudent. ” Though an elaborate counter was filed by the Respondents, there is no specific denial of the stay of the Petitioners in the scheduled property prior to the institution of the suit. The counter was on the right of Petitioners with regard to scheduled property. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is set-aside and the trial Court shall appoint an Advocate Commissioner. more As regards the ownership of utensils/household articles, this 11. Court is of the opinion that after the Advocate Commissioner files his report, only those utensils/household articles which are not disputed by be handed over to the the Respondents/Defendants can Petitioner/Plaintiff, the rest of the utensils/household articles can be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. 12. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR w //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari district. 1. The I Additional 2. OneCCto 3. OneCCto 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Sri K Subrahmanyam, Advocate [OPUC] Sri G.V.Anand Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies vna HIGH COURT DATED:20/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.542 of 2023 r % 0 7 MAR 2025 II Current 6ecuon ^ > £gSPATC\^ ^ DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS