APHC010094722021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 274/2021 Between: 1. JYOTHI DAMODHAR, S/O. SANJEEVARAYUDU JYOTHI, R/O. D.NO.13-2-104-B, DURGA COMPLEX, REVENUE COLONY, RAJAHAMSA APARTMENT ANANTHAPURAMU, NOW R/O AL NAHADA SAHARA PLAZA A BLOG, FLAT NO.1703, P.O BOX NO.55001 SHARAH ,U.A.E.AADHAAR NO.571506249336, REP. BY HIS G.P.A HOLDER JYOTHI ASHOK KUMAR, S/O SANJEEVRARYUDU JYOTHI, HINDU AGED 36 YEARS, BUSINESS, D.NO.13-2-120-B, DURGA COMPLEX, REVENUE COLONY, RAJAHAMSA APARTMENT, ANANTHPURAMU. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THOTA SIRISHA, W/oThota Giridhar , Hindu, Aged about 57 years, Occ . House wife, R/o D.No.28-5-647, 1.G-138, Housing Board Colony, Ananthapuram. ... ...RESPONDENT 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 toMemorandum of Civil Revision Petition being aggrieved by the orders dated 20-10-2020 passed in I.A.No. 539 of 2020 in O.S.No. 49 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ananthapuram IA NO: 1 OF 2021 2 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 49 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ananthapuram pending disposal of the main C.R.P., in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. N PREMRAJ 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.10.2020 passed in I.A.No.539 of 2020 in O.S.No.49 of 2019. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of an agreement executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit schedule property and note down the extent available on ground with the help of a Surveyor. 3. The learned Court below, while passing the impugned order, has rejected the prayer on the ground that this is not a proper stage to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to investigate the suit schedule property. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and improper. He further submits that the learned Court below should have considered the fact that an order to appoint an Advocate Commissioner may be made at any stage of the suit. He further submits that to elicit the dispute between the parties, an Advocate Commissioner is required to be appointed to measure the property and to note the exact extent available on ground with the help of the Surveyor, without which the necessary 4 decree cannot be passed. He further submits that if the said Advocate Commissioner is appointed, the respondent/defendant shall not be prejudiced. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Perused the order passed by the learned Court below. 8. It appears that the suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 08.05.2019. The peremptory hearing of the suit is yet to be started. At this stage, an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was filed. The learned Court below is of the view that at this stage, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is not necessary. 9. Coming to the provision of Order XXVI Rule 9, the Court may appoint an Advocate Commissioner at any stage to elicit any dispute between the parties in the suit. 10. In my view, as this is a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, the main dispute or bone of contention of the suit is whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of specific performance of the agreement or not. 11. Generally, two types of reliefs are available before the Civil Court in case of breach of an agreement. If a party fails to comply with the terms of the agreement, other party may approach the Civil Court, firstly, 5 for damages, and secondly, for specific performance of the agreement. Direction of specific performance of the agreement is only available in this case where the agreement is of such a nature breach of which an order of damages is not sufficient to compensate the suffering party. In this particular case, it has to be looked into whether the agreement in question before the Court is of such a nature that the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance. 11. In deciding to pass a decree for specific performance in favour of a plaintiff, it is not required to look at or measure and exact area of the suit schedule property which was mentioned in the agreement of sale. 12. In my view, as a decree has not been passed yet, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is not required. If we consider otherwise, that after appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and after receiving report of the Advocate Commissioner, if it appears that the plaintiff is not entitled to get a decree for specific performance, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and receiving the report thereof would be a futile exercise. Under that aspect, in my view, the order passed by the learned Court below suffers no illegality. 13. Under the above observation, this instant Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Since the suit is pending from the year 2019, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit by passing a necessary decree as early as possible most preferably within twelve (12) weeks 6 from the date of passing of this order, without providing unnecessary adjournments to the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J 17.12.2025 MH 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA 37 Civil Revision Petition No: 274 of 2021 17.12.2025 MH