IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3126 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order dated 02-12-2024 in I.A.No.837 of 2024 in I.A.No. 618 of 2024 in O.S.No.64 of 2024 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. Between: 1. Gollamala @ Gollamani Nanaji, S/o. Late Appanna, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Cutivation, R/o. Kothavalasa Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 2. Gollamala@ Gollamani Srinu, S/o. Late Appanna, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o.Kothavalasa Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS AND 1. Chinthapalli Appalakondamma, S/o.Late Rangarao, aged about 72 years, R/o.Ayyappanagar, Muralinagar East, Visakhapatnam City. 2. Pilla Venkata Satyakumari, W/o.Prasadarao, aged about 56 years, resi- do- 3. Chinthapalli Chandra Sekhar, S/o.Late Rangarao, aged about 54 years, resi-do-. 4. Sakala Sridevi, W/o.Govindarao, aged about 49 years, resi-do. 5. Chinthapalli Kiran Kumar, S/o.Late Rangarao, aged about 46 years, Respondents all are R/o.Ayyappanagar, muralinagar East, Visakhapatnam City. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFFS 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 64 of 2024 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. B. SESIBUSHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. T V SRI DEVI The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010555462024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3126/2024 Between: Gollamala @ Gollamani Nanaji and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Chinthapalli Appalakondamma and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.BSESIBUSHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.TVSRI DEVI The Court made the following order: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2024 in I.A.No.837/2024in I.A.No.618/2024 in O.S.No.64 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. 2. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit vide O.S.No.64/2024 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners/defendants filed I.A.No.837 of 2024 under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w 151 of C.P.C., 1908 to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner for localization of the plaint schedule property and also to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property with the help of qualified Mandal Surveyor, office of the Tahsildar, Kothavalasa, to clear the ambiguity of the rival controversy contentions of plaintiffs and defendants. The said application was filed on the grounds that there is serious dispute about identity of plaint schedule property. According to petitioners/defendants, the plaint schedule property is not situated in S.No.225/1 as alleged by the plaintiffs/respondents and it is situated in Sy.No.158/1 admeasuring Ac.1.82 cents at Kothavalasa Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram, which is called as Gayalu Poramboke and is permissible for cultivation for people belonging to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe communities including other below poverty line persons like that of petitioner/defendants and therefore, prayed to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner for localization of the plaint schedule property and also to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property, respondents/plaintiffs opposed the said application by filing counter stating that there is no dispute in identifying the schedule property as both the parties are claiming possession over the same single piece of land. The Moreover, the petitioners/defendants failed to file any document to show that the plaint schedule property belongs to them and the same is situated in S.No. 158/1 but not in S.No.225/1. It is well settled principle that in a suit for injunction, the appointment of Advocate Commissioner is not at all advisable under law as the same would amount to gathering of evidence, which is impermissible under law. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application. 3. After hearing both the sides, the Court below has dismissed the application under its order dated 02.12.2024 holding that the petitioners/defendants failed to present the necessity to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner and that they are trying to drag on the proceedings in I.A.No.618/2024 filed by respondents/plaintiffs for temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the revision has been filed. have present 4. Heard Sri B.Seshi Bhushan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and M/s T.V.Sri devi, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the grounds of revision submitted that, the Court below ought to have considered the specific plea of the petitioners/defendants that they are in possession and enjoyment of the land situated in Sy.No.158/1 admeasuring Ac.1.82 cents and whereas the plaintiffs sought injunction over property situated in Sy.No.225/1. In fact, the plaint schedule property is situated in Sy.No.158/1 but not in Sy.No.225/1 and to clear the ambiguity, the petitioners have filed an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and the same was dismissed erroneously. As such, filed the present revision and prayed to allow the same. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that, when a suit is filed for injunction that too, by respondents, the burden lies on them to prove their possession over the plaint schedule property and the defendants/petitioners ■w cannot make an application in that regard. She further submitted that, drag on the only to was filed by I.A.No.837/2024 below and prayed to dismiss the proceedings in respondents/plaintiffs, the which was rightly dismissed by the Court I.A.No.618/2024 which petitioners/defendants have filed present revision also. 7. Perused the record and considered counsel. the submission of both the learned 8. The respondents/plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.64/2024 for permanent suit, an application vide I.A.I\lo.618/2024 In the said application, the appoint an Advocate- property and also to note property with the help of the Tahsildar, Kothavalasa, to clear the contentions of plaintiffs and defendants, came to a conclusion that only to drag on the proceedings I.A.No.618/2024 filed by respondents/plaintiffs petitioners/defendants have filed I.A.No.837/2024. injunction. Along with the said filed for grant of temporary injunction, petitioners/defendants have filed Commissioner for localization of down the physical features of was I.A.No.837/2024 to the plaint schedule the plaint schedule qualified Mandal Surveyor, office of ambiguity of the rival controversy Court below has The in for temporary injunction, the 8. This Court in Arredia Ramireddy and others has held that, appointment of commissioner i lawful possession of suit \^s Arredia Alivelamma^ a suit for permanent injunction, suit is the only in property by plaintiff on the date of 2005(1 )ALT 28 relevant issue is such suit. Commissioners appointment to note down the physical features of suit property is not relevant. 9. Further, this Court in Jayalakshmi constructions and another Vs Nawab Bhboob Aiikhan^ has held that, Commissioners appointment in petitions for temporary injunction, the factum of possession be decided only on the basis of evidence adduced on either side, which is further elucidated or explained by the report of the commissioner is not permissible. 10. In view of the above judgments, the Court below has rightly dismissed the said application by giving cogent reasons and this Court did not find any illegality or impropriety in the said order and as there are no valid and justifiable grounds raised or urged in the present revision warranting the interference of this Court, this revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT R^ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. 2. One CC to SRI. B. SESIBUSHAN RAO Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SMT. T V SRI DEVI Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Chp HIGH COURT DATED:24/04/2025 ORDER CRP.No.3126 of 2024 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION