\\ APHC010380422024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ’CT THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER |5 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA O O V.. few CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1948 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Common Order dated 05.02.2024 passed in I.A. No. 1613 of 2023 in O.S. No. 107 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Judge, Kurnool. Between: 1. Y S Eswaraiah, S/o. Y.S. Narasimhaiah, aged 60 years, Hindu, Business, R/o. H. No. 80/120-E-16A, Abbas Nagar, Kurnool. 2. P. Adinarayana Reddy, S/o. P. Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 61 years, R/o. Flat No. 103, K.B.K Residency, New Postal Colony, Stantanapuram, Kurnool. ...Petitioners/Plaintiffs AND 1. Wazeer Khatoon, W/o. Rustum Ali Khan-Major, Muslim, House wife R/o 10/55, Peta, Kurnool. 2. P Kamalakar, S/o. P.V.S. Sharma -Major, Hindu, R/o H.no. 26/282, Peta Kurnool 3. R Padmavathamma, W/o. R. Vijayudu, -Major, Hindu, House wife, R/o Uyyalawada (V), Orvakal (M), Kurnool District. 7 4. S Md Noor Ahmed, S/o. Abdul Gaffar -Major, Muslim, H.No. 56/3, Fort Kurnool 5. S Zakir Ahmed, S/o. Abdul Gaffar -Major, Kurnool. Muslim, H.No. 56/3, Fort r ?:• 6. S Ramesh Reddy, S/o. S. Rama Subba Reddy-Major, Hindu, R/049- 50/A/87/F/15, Lakshmi Nagar, Kurnool. 7. S Sreedevi, W/o. S. Ramesh Reddy-Major, Hindu, R/o 49-50/A/87/F/15 Lakshmi Nagar, Kurnool. 8. Srimannarayana Reddy, S/o. B.M. Manimohan Reddy, aged about 40 years Hindu, R/o Plot no.201, Mullangi Rami Reddy Apartment, Srinivasa Nagar, Nandyal town, Kurnool District. 9. S Manaswitha, W/o. N. Damodhar Reddy, aged about 28 years House wife, R/o H.no. 43/253-1-4, Sankalbagh N.R. Peta, Kurnool. 10. Gona Nagaraju, S/o. Gona Naganna, Hindu, aged about 53 yrs. Asst. Engineer A.P. Educational and Welfare Infrastructure Development, R/o Plot No. 55, D.No. 87-1367-21B, Maruthi Nagar, Road, Kurnool. Nandikotkur ...Respondents/Defendants 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 the further proceedings in OS No. 107 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Anil Kumar Bejawada Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3,7,6,8,10: Sri Popuri Lakshmi Priyanvita The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010380422024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1948/2024 Between; 1.Y S ESWARAIAH, S/0. Y.S. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/0. H. NO. 80/120-E-16A, ABBAS NAGAR, KURNOOL. 2.P. ADINARAYANA REDDY,, S/0. P. NARASIMHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/0. FLAT NO. 103, K.B.K RESIDENCY, NEW POSTAL COLONY, STANTANAPURAM, KURNOOL. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. WAZEER KHATOON, W/0. RUSTUM ALI KHAN-MAJOR, MUSLIM, HOUSE WIFE R/0 10/55, PETA, KURNOOL. 2. P KAMALAKAR, S/0. P.V.S. SHARMA -MAJOR, HINDU, R/0 H.NO. 26/282, PETA KURNOOL 3. R PADMAVATHAMMA, W/0. R. VIJAYUDU, -MAJOR, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, R/0 UYYALAWADA (V), ORVAKAL (M), KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. S MD NOOR AHMED, S/0. ABDUL GAFFAR -MAJOR H.NO. 56/3, FORT KURNOOL 5. S ZAKIR AHMED, S/0. ABDUL GAFFAR -MAJOR, MUSLIM, H.NO. 56/3, FORT KURNOOL. MUSLIM 2 N S RAMESH REDDY, S/0. S. RAMA SUBBA REDDY-MAJOR, HINDU, R/O49-50/A/87/F/15, LAKSHMI NAGAR, KURNOOL. S SREEDEVI, W/0. S. RAMESH REDDY-MAJOR, HINDU, R/0 49- 50/A/87/F/15 LAKSHMI NAGAR, KURNOOL. SRIMANNARAYANA REDDY, S/0. B.M. MANIMOHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS HINDU, R/0 PLOT NO.201 MULLANGI RAMI REDDY TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. S MANASWITHA, W/0. N. DAMODHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS HOUSE WIFE, R/0 H.NO. 43/253-1-4, SANKALBAGH N R PETA, KURNOOL. 10.GONA NAGARAJU, S/0. GONA NAGANNA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 53 YRS. ASST. ENGINEER A.P. EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT, R/0 PLOT NO. 55, D.NO. 87- 1367-21B, MARUTHI NAGAR, NANDIKOTKUR ROAD, KURNOOL. ...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 tobe pleased to allow the present civil revision petition and consequently set aside the Order dated 05.02.2024 passed in I.A. No. 1613 of 2023 in O.S. No. 107 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Judge, Kurnool and pass such 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 may be pleased to stay all the further proceedings in OS No. 107 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petltioner(S): 1.ANIL KUMAR BEZAWADA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 6. 7. 8. APARTMENT, SRINIVASA NAGAR, NANDYAL 9. 3 1.POPURI LAKSHMI PRIYANVITA 2. The Court made the following: 4 i r ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool, in I.A.No.1613 of 2023 in O.S.No.107 of 2014, dated 05.02.2024. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid suit against the defendants/respondents for declaration of their title over the plaint schedule property. In the said suit, the defendants/respondents have filed their separate written statements claiming title of the said property by way of respective sale deeds. Pending the said suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.1613 of 2023 under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C.’) with a plea to appoint advocate commissioner to identify the petition schedule plots with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor, Kurnool Urban mandal, Kurnool. The trial Court, having observed that the dispute is about the ownership over the plaint schedule property and that there is no need to appoint an advocate commissioner, has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs vide order dated 05.02.2024, which is challenged before this Court by way of the present revision petition. 3. When the matter came up for admission on 06.09.2024, this Court has passed an interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.107 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Kurnool. 4. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Bejawada, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Popuri Lakshmi Priyanvitha, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plaint schedule plots are located in a land in Sy.No.88/1 and 95/1 of Joharapuram village, which has fallen to the share of one late Bhaskar Reddy during partition from his brothers namely late Srinivasa Reddy and late Siva Shankar Reddy, who sold their respective shares of land in 5 Sy.Nos.88/2. 88/3. 95/2 and 95/3 to Maruthi Traders under whom the defendants are claiming their title. The dispute in the present case is as to What survey number the suit schedule property falls under i.e.. if the suit schedule property is located in Sy.Nos.85/1 and 95/1, the petitioners entitled for declaration, else, the respondents/defendants claim would would become view of the said dispute, appointment legitimate. He further submitted that in of advocate commissioner is necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. If the suit schedule property is measured with the registered documents of the petitioners, the dispute between the parties would be resolved amicably. As to set-aside the order passed by the trial Court and to appoint an advocate commissioner. such, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the order passed by the trial Court in all aspects. Further, learned counsel contended that earlier one Y. Seshamma and others filed a suit (O.S.No.21 of 2014) seeking declaration of their title over different extent of lands in the same survey numbers as in the present case i.e. Sy.No.88/1 and 95/1 of Joharapuram village and that in the said suit, the petitioners therein filed an application for appointment of advocate commissioner for the very was confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.1663 of 2022. As such, learned counsel requested to dismiss the present revision petition. same purpose, which was dismissed and the same 7. As the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.1613 of Court below under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 of an advocate commissioner, this Court feels it XXVI Rules 9 and 10 of C.P.C., and also Section 75 of C.P.C., which deals with the power of Court to issue commissions. 2023 before the C.P.C., for appointment of appropriate to refer to Order “Section 75 - Power of court to issue commissions: - Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the commission- court may issue a ‘N—. 6 1. to examine any person; 2. to make a local investigation; 3. to examine or adjust accounts; 4. to make a partition; 5. to hold a scientific, technical r or or expert investigation; 6. to 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. Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10: - 9. Commissions to make local investigations.—In any suit in which the 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 a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court; 10. Procedure of Commissioner — (1) The Commissioner, after such local inspection as he deems necessary and after reducing to writing the evidence taken by him, shall return such evidence, together with his report in writing signed by him, to the Court. (2) Report and depositions to be evidence in suit. Commissioner may be examined in person.—The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him (but not the evidence without the report) shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record; but the Court permission of the Court, any of the parties to the suit Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his report, manner in which he has made the investigation. or, with the may examine the or as to the (3) Where the Court is for any reason dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner, it may direct such further inquiry to be made as it shall think fit.” 8. Admittedly, the object of issuance of commission under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 of C.P.C., is to elucidate any matter in dispute but not to collect or gather evidence. An Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for making an enquiry about factum of possession of the property in dispute, which is nothing but fishing out evidence and not elucidating the matter in dispute. 9. In the case on hand, the petitioners/plaintiffs have O.S.No.107 of 2014 seeking declaration and injunction and they assert title and respect of the suit schedule properties by virtue of a sale deed bearing No.4537 of 2014, dated 02.07.2014. The said fact is not disputed by the respondents/defendants in their written statements. It can be observed that there is no dispute with reference to the location or identification of the disputed property. When there is no controversy as to identification, location measurement of the subject land, local investigation by an advocate commissioner would be a futile exercise. Even otherwise, it can be seen that one Y. Seshamma and others filed another suit vide O.S.No.21 possession in or of 2014 seeking declaration of their title over different extent of lands in Sy.Nos.88/1 and 95/1 of Joharapuram village, wherein, they filed an application for appointment of an advocate commissioner for the very same purpose as was done in the case on hand; however, the said application was dismissed which was also confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.1663 of 2022. As such, the question of appointing an advocate commissioner in the case on hand, would not arise. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, as this Court finds no merits, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. F W closed. 8 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Petition, shall stand Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District 2. One CC to Sri. Anil Kumar Bezawada Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Popuri Lakshmi Priyanvita Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Stu vna HIGH COURT DATED:18/09/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1948 OF 2024 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS