APHC010314802024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI r FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTO^ i C. TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1612 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 02.07.2024 passed in I.A. No. 51 of 2024 in O.S. No. 2 of 2023, on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court (Fast Track Court), Rajampet at Badvel. Between: Shaik Waheed, S/o. Shaik Mohammad Ameer Ahammad, aged about 23 years, resident of D. No. 4/385-4, G.V. Satram Majara, Nandyalampeta Village, Mydukur Mandal, YSR District ...Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant AND 1. Shaik Syed Ali, S/o. Late Shaik Mahaboob Basha, aged about 47 years, D. No. 3/281, Sastru Bagarm Akkayapalle, Kadapa City, YSR District. 2. Kummati Subbalakshumma, W/o. Late Kummati Lakshmi Reddy, aged about 68 years. 3. Kummati Subhdramma, W/o. Late Kummati Lakshmi Reddy, aged about 64 years, 4. Kummati Srinivasula Reddy, S/o. Late Kummati Lakshmi Reddy, aged about 41 years. 5. Kummati Lakshmi Devi, D/o. Late Kummati Lakshmi Reddy, aged about 36 years. 6. Kummati Indramma, D/o. Late Kummati Lakshmi Reddy, aged about 34 years. 7. Kummati Vengal Reddy, S/o. Late Kummati Lakshmi Reddy, aged about 30 years. 8. Kummati Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Late Kummati Lakshmi Reddy, aged about 28 years. 9. Kummati Eswar Reddy, S/o. Late Kummati Lakshmi Reddy, aged about 25 years. The respondents Nos. 2 to 9 are the residents of D. No. 2-496, Yerraballi Village, Tamballagondi Gram Panchayat, Atlur Mandal, YSR District. ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 operation of the order dated 02.07.2024 in LA. No. 51 of 2024 in O.S. No. 2 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court (Fast Track Court), Rajampet at Badvel, pending disposal of the main revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KALEEMULLA S Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P NARASIMHULU The Court made the following Order: r / APHC010314802024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) // [3333] / FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT I !■ i THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL RFVISION petition NO: 1612/2024 Between: 1.SHAIK WAHEED, S/0. SHAIK MOHAMMAD AMEER AHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D. NO. 4/385-4, G.V. SATRAM MAJARA, NANDYALAMPETA VILLAGE. MYDUKUR MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.SHAIK SYED ALI, S/0. LATE SHAIK MAHABOOB BASHA, AGED YEARS, D. NO. 3/281, SASTRU BAGARM ABOUT 47 AKKAYAPALLE, KADAPA CITY, YSR DISTRICT. 2.KUMMATI SUBBALAKSHUMMA, W/0. LATE KUMMATI LAKSHMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. 3.KUMMATI SUBHDRAMMA, , W/0. LATE KUMMATI LAKSHMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 4.KUMMATI SRINIVASULA REDDY, , S/O. LATE KUMMATI LAKSHMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 5.KUMMATI LAKSHMI DEVI. D/0. LATE KUMMATI LAKSHMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 6. KUMMATI INDRAMMA, D/O. LATE KUMMATI LAKSHMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. 7.KUMMATI VENGAL REDDY, S/O. LATE KUMMATI LAKSHMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS T \ 2 VS,J\ C.R.P.No.1612 of 2024 \ , PRABHAKAR REDDY, S/0. LATE KUMMATl LAKSHMI aged about 28 YEARS. YEARS ' THE ^^POnS HolTio IaRE "°"°rSntITd. no 2-496, YERRABALL, VILLAGE, tambal^gond, gram PANCHAYAT, ATLUR MANDAL 8. KUMMATl REDDY, . THE YSR district. ...RESPONDENT(S); Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia,praymg that m the “s”< rr"S «. w. Track Court), Rajampet at Badvel Court (Fast lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, 51 srofN^ ;T2^rthi:ro;rhrri=:rse.^^ c., June's court (Fast Track Court), Rajampet at Badvel, pending disposal of the main revision petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KALEEMULLAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2.P NARASIMHULU The Court made the following: 7 /■ v / • 3 VS,J 4'y -- C.R.P.No.1612 of 2024 The Court made by foHowinq ORDER: The petitioner/p^aintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the orders passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajampet at Badvel in I.A.No.51 of 2024 in O.S.No.2 of 2023 under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC filed by the respondents/defendants to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to locate the suit schedule property with the help of the Mandal Surveyor. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.2 of 2023. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.2 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajampet at Badvel, against the respondents for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, as they are in permissible possession and have refused to vacate the suit schedule property. The 3^^ respondent/3'^ defendant in the suit filed the written statement without any documentary evidence in support of her defence. The petitioner/plaintiff purchased the house bearing No.2-496 situated in 2"^ ward of Yerraballi Village, Thammalagondi Gram Panchayat, Atlur Mandal, YSR District and vacant site (total extent of Ac.0.33 cents out of Ac.3.35 cents) in Sy.No.256-A1 of Yerraballi Village Fields from respondent No.1 herein by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 15.11.2022, bearing document No. 1172/2022 and since then they have been in possession of the said suit schedule house to the knowledge of one and all, including the respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein. Respondent Nos.2 to 9 possessed land in an extent of T 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.1612 of2024 V Ac.1.56 cents out of Ac.3.35 cents in the same survey number i Yerraballi Village fields by virtue of i.e., 256-A1 of a registered sale deed dated 28.12.1995 with document No.684/1995 in favour of respondent No.3 herein, 3^^ defendant in the suit. But however \ \ who is the respondent Nos.2 to 9 sold their total on 21.11.2008 under a and since then the said in possession and enjoyment of the said same to one Sri Choppala Venkata through a registered sale deed 01.07.2022 vide document No.678/2022. While things stood thus and petitioner/plaintiffs cross in I.A.No.51 of 2024 under Order 26 Advocate Commissioner to locate the Mandal Surveyor. The trial Court allowed dated 02.07.2024, challenging which, preferred on the ground that the trial Court, without paying any attention to the fact that site or land whatsoever in Yerraballi Village Fields to one Shaik Munawar Nawaz. extent of Ac.1.56 cents to one Shall Munawar Nawaz registered sale deed vide document No. 1257/2008, Shaik Munawar Nawaz had been i property, who in turn sold the Reddy 4. while the suit was coming for the examination by the respondents, they filed a petition Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of suit schedule house with the help of the said application vide orders the present Civil Revision Petition i' without application of mind and respondent Nos.2 to 9 have having sold away the same IS no 5. When the present petition Court has passed the following order: ...At request of learned counsel for respondent Nos on 10.10.2025, under the caption ‘for orders’. came up for hearing on 25.09.2025, this .2 to 9, post the matter 5 VS,J n C.R.P.No.1612 of 2024 Till such time, there shall be an interim suspension of the operation of the order dated 02.07.2024 in I.A.No.51 of 2024 in O.S.No.2 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Tract Court), Rajampet at Badvel.” 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel representing the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the facts as stated in his affidavit. 8. However, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the total extent of the suit schedule property in Sy.No.256/1A is Ac.3.35 cents, out of which the respondent No. 1/defendant No.l’s husband purchased land to an extent of Ac. 1.56 cents in her name under a registered sale deed No.684/1995 dated 28.12.1995. In the said document, the land to an extent of Ac.1.56 cents is located on the northern side portion of Ac.3.35 cents and later a house was constructed in two portions vide D.Nos.8-51 and 8-52. In the same survey number, on the southern side portion, there were lands of Ramireddy Obul Konda Reddy and Pinnapureddy Siva Reddy. They sold away their portion of land in an extent of Ac.0.33 cents in favour of Shaik Syed Ali under a registered sale deed No. 1026/2009 dated 21.08.2009. The petitioner/plaintiff approached the defendant Nos.2 to 9 herein to purchase their house and when they refused, the petitioner/plaintiff hatched a plan with Shaik Syed Ali to knock away their house. As per their plan, the said Shaik Syed All sold away hiS' iand in an' extent of Ae.0*.33 cents in The suif survey number in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff registered sale deed T 6 VS,J y C.R.P.No.1612 of 2024 No. 1172/2002 dated 15.11.2002 by incorporating the defendants is located in an extent of Ac.0.33 cents. As such, the house, as it respondents/defendants were constrained to file the interlocutory application under Order 26 Rule CPC requesting the Court below to ascertain whether the suit house is located in their land petitioner/plaintiff with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor. 9 of appoint an Advocate Commissioner to or in the land of the 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that as per the document dated 21.11.2008 filed along with the petition, it can be observed that land to an extent of Ac.1.56 cents or 0.632 hectares out of Ac.3.36 cents ‘Sarkar Punji respondents/defendants herein, having sold away the entire land Syed All, do not have any land or site so as to property and its measurements with the help of the Advocate along with the Mandal Surveyor and requested to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. IS vide D.N0.256/A1 and argued that the to one Shaik examine the identity of the Commissioner present revision 10. On a perusal of the impugned order, it can be observed that the petitioner/plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from his Shaik Syed Ali, through a registered sale deed dt. 15.11.2022 and si defendant Nos.2 to 9 them to be in the suit schedule house, requested defendant Nos.2 to 9 to vacate the vacate the premises on the pretext that they had vendor, name since the were known to the defendant No.1 and he permitted after purchase of the property, he same, but they refused to an agreement with defendant No.1 to reside in the plaint schedule house as long^s they wish. Further 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.1612 of 2024 according to the pleadings of the petitioner/defendant^ the plaintiff approached them to purchase their house, but they refused to do so, and as such, the plaintiff hatched a plan to knock away their house and falsely incorporated their house as it is located in Ac.0.33 cents. Though it is claimed that the respondents sold their total extent of Ac. 1.56 cents in favour of Shaik Munawar Nawaz, it was only a part of Ac.3.35 cents but not the entire extent. It has been taken a stand that Ac. 1.56 cents was sold to Shaik Munawar Nawaz, but however, only a part of Ac.3.35 cents has been sold under the said document. 11. It appears from the pleadings of both parties that there is a dispute with regard to the location of the suit schedule property. Therefore, in order to elucidate the matter in controversy in respect of the suit schedule property, it is just and necessary to appoint an advocate commissioner and accordingly. the same was allowed, which is neither illegal nor arbitrary. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no 12. order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Additional Senior Civil Judge(FTC), Rajampet, Badvel. 2. OneCCto Sri KALEEMULLA S, Advocate tOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P NARASIMHULU, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies vna \ \. \ \ high court DATED:17/10/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1612 OF 2024 s( 0 7 NOV 2025 <» rrentSectj* mis& DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS