/ APHC010418422023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ^ AT AMARAVATI I o THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA A. FRIDAY, CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2073 of 2023 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the I.A.No.207 of 2022 in Petition under Article 227 order dated 03-07-2023 passed in I.A.No.161 of 2023 m file of Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru O.S.No.487 of 2015 on the West Godavari District. Between: Challagolla Siva Ranga Ratna Kumari, W/o Appa Rao, age 57 years. C/o Garapati Prasad, D.No.3-31. Munduru Village, Pedavegi Mandal West Godavari District. ...Petitioner/1 Respondent/1®* Defendant AND R/o D.No.3- 1. Gorella Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late Ranga Rao, age 48 years Chakrayagudem Grama Panchayat, Munduru I 366, Seetharamapuram Post, Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff 2. The Mandal Revenu Officer, Pedavegi Mandal. West Godavari District. ...Respondent/2"'' Respondent/2"'' Defendant (2"" Respondent is not necessary party in this CRP) V. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 i-? Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay of all further proceedings I.A.No.161 of 2023 in I.A.No.207 of 2022 in O.S.No.487 of 2015 on the file of Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, dated 03-07-2023. : Sri P N Murthy Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri G.V.Anand Kumar The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010418422023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2073/2023 Between: 1 CHALLAGOLLA SIVA RANGA RATNA KUMARI, , W/O APPA RAO. AGE 57 YEARS, C/0 GARAPATI PRASAD, D.NO.3-31. MUNDURU PEDAVEGI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT VILLAGE ...PETITIONER AND 1 GORELLA SRINIVASA RAO, S/0 LATE RANGA RAO, AGE 48 YEARS, R/0 D.NO.3-366, SEETHARAMAPURAM. CHAKRAYAGUDEM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MUNDURU POST, PEDAVEGI MANDAL, WEST GODVARI DISTRICT. 2.THE MANDAL REVENU OFFICER, PEDAVEGI MANDAL GODAVARI DISTRICT. (2ND RESPONDENT IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS CRP) WEST ...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 topleased to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.161 of 2023 in O.S.No.487 of 2015 on the file of Court of Additional l.A.No.207 of 2022 in Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, dt. 03-07-2023 and pass 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 t 2 pleased stay of all further proceedings I.A.No.161 of 2023 in I.A.No.207 of 2022 in O.S.No.487 of 2015 on the file of Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, dt. 03-07-2023 and pass lA NO: 1 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 may be pleased to Extend the interim orders granted in CRP.No. 2073 of 2023 dt:28-08-2023 in the interest of justice, and pas Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P N MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.G.V.ANAND KUMAR The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: been filed by the petitioner/defendant lANo.161 of 2023 in This Civil Revision Petition has the order dated 03.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.207 of 2022 in O.S.No.487 of 2015 on the file of Court of Additional challenging Senior Civil Judge, Eluru. respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit seeking permanent St 2. The 1 injunction against the petitioner/defendant herein wherein, the petitioner/1 written statement denying the contentions of the St defendant herein has filed a 1®* respondent/plaintiff. Pending l.A.No.207 of 2022 with a request to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property and the same Court below vide order dated 17.10.2022, by appointing the said suit, the 1®^ respondent/plaintiff filed was allowed by the Ch.N. Sirisha as advocate commissioner features of the plaint schedule property to note down the physical with the assistance of Mandal one the advocate Pursuant to the same notice to Tahsildar, Pedavegi mandal to depute Surveyor, Pedavegi mandal. commissioner got issued a Mandal Surveyor, Pedavegi mandal to assist the advocate commissioner, but, to assist the advocate the Tahsildar has deputed the village surveyor commissioner. Accordingly, the commissioner on 11.02.2023 along Village Surveyor assisted the advocate with three male surveyors and letter to the 1 subsequently, the advocate commissioner addressed a respondent/plaintiff stating that R.S.No.372/1 Medinaraopalem belongs to 4 Denduiuru mandal, Chakrayagudem belongs to Pedavegi mandal, Munduru belongs to Pedavegi mandal and that the said R.S., number is in the boundary of three villages; she further stated that she has not found survey stones of village boundaries and she could not conduct the survey. As the Village Surveyor is not acting diligently, the respondent/plaint iff has filed I.A.No.161 of 2023 under Section 151 C.P.C., to permit the advocate commissioner to take the assistance of District Surveyor, Eluru for demarcating the suit schedule property. The Court below, after perusing the St material available on record, has allowed the application filed by the 1 respondent/plaintiff vide the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 and has directed advocate commissioner to take the assistance of the District Surveyor, Eluru for refixing and demarcating the suit schedule land and to submit a report. Challenging the said order dated 03.07.2023, the petitioner/1 defendant has filed the present civil revision petition. 3. When the civil revision petition came up for hearing on 28.08.2023, this Court has granted stay of operation of the order dated 03.07.2023 in I.A.No.161 of 2023 in I.A.No.207 of 2022 in 0;S.No.487 of 2015 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, initially for a period of three weeks and the same was extended thereafter from time to time. Heard Sri. P.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. G.R. 4. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. /. 5 During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 1®’ respondent has filed O.S.No.487 of 2015 against the petitioner herein seeking permanent injunction for the suit schedule property. After completion of evidence, the 1®‘ respondent filed I.A.No.207 of 2022 for appointment of advocate commissioner to not the physical features of the suit schedule land, which is nothing but collecting evidence after completion of trail. The said application was allowed and the advocate commissibner visited the suit schedule land along with the 1®* respondent, however, in the absence 5. of the petitioner. He further contended that the 1®^ respondent has once again filed I.A.No.161 of 2023 before the Court below seeking assistance of the district surveyor for measuring the land. When the suit filed by the 1®^ respondent is for permanent injunction, there is no necessity of filing an application for appointment of an advocate commissioner to measure the suit schedule land. The trial Court has erroneously allowed the application by duly observing that the object of the local investigation by the advocate commissioner is to obtain evidence which could be drawn only from the spot inspection. But, however, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that allowing such application would be nothing but permitting the plaintiff to collect evidence after completion of the trial. As such, requested to allow the revision petition by setting aside the 6. order dated 03.07.2023. I 6 On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1®‘ respondent supported the order passed by the trial Court in alt aspects and subsequently, requested this Court to dismiss the revision petition. 7. Appointment of Commissioner etc., is contemplated under Section 75 of of Civil Procedure and Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 deals about the 8. Code procedure to be followed by the Commissioner, which are extracted hereunder; “Section 75 - Power of court to issue commissions: - Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the court may commission- issue a 1. to examine any person; 2. to make a local investigation; 3. to examine or adjust accounts; or 4. to make a partition; 5. to hold a scientific, technical, or expert investig'ation, conduct sale of property which is subject to speedy and natural decay and which is in the custody of the Court pending the determination of the suit; 7. to perform any ministerial act. 6. to Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10: - make local investigations.—In any suit in which the 9. Commissions to Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the a commission to such person as it thinks Court; 7 10. Procedure of Commissioner — such local inspection as he deems the evidence taken by him, shall together with his report in writing signed by him, to (1) The Commissioner, after necessary and after reducing to writing return such evidence, the Court. in suit. Commissioner may be (2) Report and depositions to be evidence in examined in person.—The taken by him (but the suit and shall form part report of the Commissioner and the evidence not the evidence without the report) shall be evidence in of the record; but the Court or, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to the suit may examine the Commissioner personally In open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation. dissatisfied with the proceedings of direct such further inquiry to be made as it shall (3) Where the Court is for any the Commissioner, it may l think fit.” reason Admittedly, the object of issuance of commission under Order XXVI matter in dispute but not to Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for making an enquiry about factum of possession of the property in dispute, out evidence and not elucidating the matter in 9. Rules 9 and 10 of C.P.C., is to elucidate any collect or gather evidence. An which is nothing but fishing dispute. In Bandaru Mutyalu Vs. Palli Appalaraju', learned single Judge of composite High Court held that in situations where there is controversy as to identification, location or measurement of the land, local investigation should aware of the report of the 10. be done at an early stage so that the parties are ' 2013 (6) ALT 26 / / 8 Commissioner and go to trial prepared and the object under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code which of local investigation cannot be littled. 11. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 03.07.2023, it can be observed that the advocate commissioner, in her letter addressed to the 1st respondent/plaintiff has stated that she is having no valid record available due to which she could not conduct the survey and that if surveyors of the aid villages assist her, she could refix and demarcate the R.S.Nos.372/1 and 372/2. Considering the same, the trial Court observed as under: “...When, there is a dispute over the extent, measuring of the suit property with the help of Surveyor and the plan thereon would considerably reduce the oral evidence. The object of the local investigation is to obtain evidence which could be based on only from the spot and the Inspection. Report of the Advocate Commissioner would enable the record in resolving the contentious points. Measuring property of the petitioner would not cause any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents. 12. Under similar circumstances, the High Court of Madras in B. Manimurugan Vs. K.S. Krishna^, while relying upon various other judgments of the same High Court, dismissed the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, stating that in a suit for injunction. Advocate Commissioner need not be appointed, and the petitioner must prove possession through oral and documentary evidence. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, as the necessity of appointing advocate commissioner to measure the suit schedule land does not arise as an ^ 2017 Supreme (Mad) 783 9 the subject suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/1®* defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has erred in St appointing an advocate commissioner as requested by the 1 respondent/plaintiff. 14. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 03.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.161 of 2023 in I.A.No.207 of 2022 in O.S.No.487 of 2015 on the file of Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru is hereby set-aside. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eluru, West Godavari District. 2. One CC to Sri P N Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri G.V.Anand Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Two CD Copies TK vna I HIGH COURT DATED:12/09/2025 ORDER CRP No.2073 of 2023 ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS