APHC010063812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 357/2025 Between: 1. KASTURI PRAKASH RAO, S/O VISHA KANTAYYA, AGED 56 YEARS,R/O DEVARAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GULLIPALLI YERRAYYAMMA, W/O DEMUDU, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O OPP. RAMALAYAM TEMPLE, DEVARAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. KOLLI PYDITHALLI, S/O LATE PEDA DEMUDU, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O BEERAKA VEEDHI, DEVARAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. KOLLI BALA KRISHNA, S/O PARASAYYA, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O BEERAKA VEEDHI, DEVARAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 allow the Revision Petition while setting aside the Decretal Order dated 27.11.2024 in I.A. No.417 of 2024 in AS No. 153 of 2018 on the file of IX Additional District Judge at Chodavaram and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.357 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 to stay all further proceedings in AS. No. 153 of 2018 on the file of IX Additional District Judge at Chodavaram pending the Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T V SRI DEVI The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.357 of 2025 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.417 of 2024 in A.S.No.153 of 2018 on the file of the learned IX Additional District Judge, Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.131 of 2011 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram filed against the respondents/defendants seeking declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 3. After due contest, the trial Court dismissed the said suit vide judgment and decree dated 13.03.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred A.S.No.153 of 2018 before the learned IX Additional District Judge, Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam. Pending the said appeal, the petitioner filed I.A.No.417 of 2024 in A.S.No.153 of 2018 under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor. The said application was dismissed by the first appellate Court by the impugned order dated 27.11.2024. Challenging which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. Heard Mr.Kasturi Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.T.V.Sri Devi, learned counsel for the respondents. 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.357 of 2025 5. Admittedly, the petitioner filed O.S.No.131 of 2011 seeking declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction, in respect of plaint schedule property. The said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 13.03.2018. A perusal of the judgment goes to show that the trial Court observed this: “The documents filed by the plaintiff show that a better title is not passed to the plaintiff for the suit schedule land. The plaintiff ought to have approached the Revenue Authorities and got the land served through the Mandal Surveyor before entering into Ex.A1 sale deed transaction. Atleast the plaintiff ought to have filed an application before the Court to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner with the help of Mandal Surveyor and get localization of schedule property but no such steps were taken by the plaintiff. In the above circumstances there cannot be any hesitation to say the plaintiff miserably failed to discharge his burden to prove issues 1 to 5.” 6. In view of the observations made by the trial Court while dismissing the suit, I.A.No.417 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down physical features of the plaint schedule property with the help of the Mandal Surveyor. However, the first appellate Court dismissed the said application holding that allowing the same would amount to filling up the lacunae in the petitioner’s case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo duly enclosing a copy of the registered sale deed dated 23.04.2008, which was marked as Ex.A1 in O.S.No.131 of 2011. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents/defendants are claiming title through a registered will dated 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.357 of 2025 21.02.1980 executed by their father, which was marked as Ex.B1 in O.S.No.131 of 2011, wherein no survey number was mentioned. 8. In view of the fact that the claim of the petitioner is restricted only to the extent of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property through the Mandal Surveyor of Devarapalli Mandal as per the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1/registered sale deed dated 23.04.2008, which was already marked as Ex.A1 in O.S.No.131 of 2011, this Court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the first appellate Court in rejecting such a limited request. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that in fact, the petitioner filed an affidavit in I.A.No.417 of 2024 and also sought demarcation of the physical features basing upon the rectification deed executed by the petitioner’s vendor’s vendor on 07.08.2018, rectifying the survey number as 262/1 instead of Sy.No.262/1-I. However, this Court not inclined to deal with the said aspect and is only inclined to allow the prayer to the extent of appointment of an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property in accordance with the registered sale deed dated 23.04.2008 i.e., Ex.A1 marked in O.S.No.131 of 2011. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the learned IX Additional District Judge, Chodavaram, Visakahapatnam, in I.A.No.417 of 2024 in A.S.No.153 of 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.357 of 2025 2018. The first appellate Court is directed to take immediate steps to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, Devarapalli Mandal, strictly basing on the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1 registered sale deed dated 23.04.2008 in O.S.No.131 of 2011, but not on the Rectification Deed dated 07.08.2018 executed by the petitioner’s vendor’s vendor rectifying survey number as Sy.No.262/1-I. The said exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of appointment of the Advocate Commissioner. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 31.10.2025. KGR