APHC010477732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Between: 1. BONI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O APPALA PHYDITHALLI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O JONNAVALASA VILLAGE,VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. BONI PYDITHALLI,, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O JONNAVALASA VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. GORLE GANESH,, S/O APPALA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O MURAPAKA VILLAGE, GANTYADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARA 4. BOBBADI NARAYANA, , S/O SANYASI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O POOLBAGH COLONY, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 5. JAMI YERNAMMA,, W/O MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O JONNAGUDDI, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 1. RONGALI PADMAVATHI, W/O VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O DOOR NO. 1 CANTONMENT, NEAR R AND B GUEST HOUSE, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2297/2025 BONI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O APPALA PHYDITHALLI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O JONNAVALASA VILLAGE,VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. BONI PYDITHALLI,, S/O BANGARAYYA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O JONNAVALASA VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. GORLE GANESH,, S/O APPALA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O MURAPAKA VILLAGE, GANTYADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. BOBBADI NARAYANA, , S/O SANYASI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O POOLBAGH COLONY, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. JAMI YERNAMMA,, W/O MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O JONNAGUDDI, VIZIANAGARAM, ANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND RONGALI PADMAVATHI, W/O VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O DOOR NO. 1 CANTONMENT, NEAR R AND B GUEST HOUSE, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BONI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O APPALA PHYDITHALLI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O JONNAVALASA VILLAGE,VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. S/O BANGARAYYA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O JONNAVALASA VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. GORLE GANESH,, S/O APPALA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O MURAPAKA VILLAGE, GANTYADA BOBBADI NARAYANA, , S/O SANYASI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O POOLBAGH COLONY, VIZIANAGARAM, JAMI YERNAMMA,, W/O MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O JONNAGUDDI, VIZIANAGARAM, ...PETITIONER(S) RONGALI PADMAVATHI, W/O VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O DOOR NO. 1-8-28, CANTONMENT, NEAR R AND B GUEST HOUSE, VIZIANAGARAM, 2 2. KOTHALI VENKATA RAO, S/O LATE SIMHACHALAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O DOOR NO. 1-8-28, CANTONMENT, NEAR R AND B GUEST HOUSE, VIZIANAGARAM VIZIANAGARAM 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 Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 08.04.2025 passed in I.A. No. 123 of 2025 in O.S. No. 12 of 2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram in the interest of justice and pass IA 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 12 of 2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram pending disposal of the above Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 The Court made the following order: Questioning the order dated 08.04.2025 passed in Interlocutory Application No.123 of 2025 in Original Suit No.12 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The respondents herein, being the plaintiffs, have filed Original Suit No.12 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram seeking a decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. In the said suit, the petitioners herein/defendants filed I.A.No.123 of 2025 under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure the Plaint Schedule Property with reference to Ex.A1 sale deed and to fix the boundaries of the property covered by the sale deed. To the said application, the respondents herein/plaintiffs filed counter, denying the allegations and inter aila contending that the said application was filed only to drag on the proceedings and that the petitioners cannot seek measurement of the schedule property with reference to Ex.A1 sale deed and fix boundaries, without seeking measurements of the property covered under the alleged Ex.B1 alleged patta and that there are no merits in the application and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the application. Upon hearing the parties and considering their submissions, the trial Court dismissed the said Interlocutory Application on the ground that the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the schedule property with reference to 4 Ex.A1 sale deed filed by the plaintiffs and to fix the boundaries of the property covered by the sale deed, which amounts to collection of evidence and it is the bounden duty of the parties to prove their respective case by adducing oral and documentary evidence on either side and it is not permissible to appoint an advocate commissioner to gather evidence in support of any party. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein/defendants filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. Heard Sri Bonu Rama Shankar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision, contended that the Court below has erroneously dismissed the application without properly appreciating the scope and object of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court below failed to consider the defence specifically taken by the petitioners in their written statement while dismissing the application. He further contended that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs, if such application is allowed and in fact the Commissioner’s report would serve as an aid to the Court in disposing of the suit. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. It is not in dispute that the suit is coming for arguments. The petitioners herein/defendants filed application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner 5 stating that the Government allotted the subject land to their father and that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the part of the plaint schedule property, however, the plaintiffs with wrong measurements based on the alleged sale deed, are trying to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and that in order to prove their case, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is very much essential. In support of their contention, they relied on the judgment of this Court in Pulipalpula Srinivas v. Gangula Vasanta1. 7. The facts emanating from the cited judgment are different from the facts of the present case. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable and cannot be relied upon in support of the case of the petitioners. The burden always lies on the plaintiffs to prove their case. The purpose of a local investigation by an Advocate Commissioner is to assist the court in visualizing and understanding the physical characteristics of the property, not to collect evidence for one party. The Court below has dealt the application in a right perspective and no valid legal grounds have been raised warranting interference of this Court. The impugned order does not suffer from any perversity. 8. In view of the above, this Court finds that the Court below has rightly dismissed the application and there is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Court below. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. 1 2011(2) ALD 485 6 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 19.09.2025 MP 7 721 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2297 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 MP