APHC010449912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2201/2025 Between: 1. PAMULAPATI JYOTHISWARI, W/O P. PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, RESIDENT OF H. NO. 3-15A, CHINNARACHA PALLI VILLAGE, CHITVEL MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. PAMULAPATI SUBBA RAYUDU, S/O LATE NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF D.NO.3-23-A, CHINNARACHA PALLI VILLAGE CHITVEL MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 2. PAMULAPATI KOTESWARA RAO, S/O LATE VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF D.NO.3-22, CHINNARACHAPALLI VILLAGE, CHITVEL MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 3. PAMULAPATI VENKATESWARLU, S/O. LATE VENKATAPATHI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF D.NO.3/5, CHINNARACHAPALLI VILLAGE CHITVEL MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFF. 4. PAMULAPATI PRASAD NAIDU, S/O. SUBBA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE AND CONTRACTOR, RESIDENT OF D.NO.3/15-A, CHINNARACHA PALLI VILLAGE, CHITVEL MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 5. YEDOTI VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O. NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT OF 70 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF D. NO. 3/15-A, CHINNARACHA PALLI VILLAGE, CHITVEL MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 6. PAMULAPTI SANTHOSH REDDY, S/O. PRASAD NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR WORKS. RESIDENT OF D.NO.3/15-A, CHINNARACHAPALLI VILLAGE, CHITVEL MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. SRK, J CRP No.2201 of 2025 2 7. YEDOTI VAMSEE, S/O SIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, RESIDENT OF D.NO.3-24, CHINNARACHA PALLI VILLAGE CHITVEL MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 8. YEDOTI NARESH, SON VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABPUT 32 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D. NO. 4-30 B KOTHAPALLI, BP RACHAPALLE POST, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA 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 set aside the order dated 11.04.2025 in I.A. No. 131 of 2025 in OS. No. 44 of 2024 on the file of the Honble Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District and pass such 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 dispense with filing of the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 I.A. No. 131 of 2025 in O.S.No. 131 of 2024 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, pending disposal of the main revision petition and pass such IA NO: 2 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 suspend the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 I.A. No. 131 of 2025 in O.S. No. 131 of 2024 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, pending disposal of the main revision petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NAVULURU KRISHNA SAI The Court made the following: SRK, J CRP No.2201 of 2025 3 O R D E R The petitioner/defendant No.2 filed the present Revision Petition, challenging the Order, dated 11.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.131 of 2025 in O.S.No.44 of 2024 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajampet (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby and whereunder, petition under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, was allowed, and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to conduct survey of the schedule property with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, Rajampet. 2. Petitioner is 2nd respondent and 2nd defendant and respondent Nos.1 to 3 are petitioners and plaintiffs in I.A.No.131 of 2025 and O.S.No.44 of 2024, respectively. Parties in the present Revision Petition are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed before the trial Court. 3. Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.44 of 2024 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajampet against defendant Nos.1 to 6 seeking for the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining them and their men from causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs’ SRK, J CRP No.2201 of 2025 4 possession and enjoyment in the suit ‘A, B and C’ schedule properties in any manner and for costs. 4. During the pendency of suit proceedings, plaintiffs filed I.A.No.131 of 2025 in O.S.No.44 of 2024 under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC praying the Court to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner for conducting survey of the schedule property with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor. The Trial Court, vide impugned Order, dated 11.04.2025 allowed the said petition, the operative portion of which reads thus: “In the result, this petition is allowed by appointing Sri G.Surendra, Advocate, Rajampet as a Court Commissioner to conduct survey of the petitioner schedule property with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor, Rajampet. His remuneration is fixed Rs.5,000/- is directly payable by the petitioner to the Court Commissioner. The Court Commissioner shall give notice to both parties before he proceeded to execute the warrant. The Commissioner shall receive work memos if any, filed by both counsels and answer them as far as practicable. Commissioner shall follow the procedure contemplated under Order XXVI of CPC. For Report, call on 16.05.2025.” 5. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition was filed by 2nd defendant, praying the Court to set-aside the impugned Order, on the ground that the defendants were not issued any notice before passing the Order on 11.04.2025. SRK, J CRP No.2201 of 2025 5 6. Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ 2nd defendant and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/ plaintiffs. Perused the entire material available on record. 7. The point that arises for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is “Whether the impugned Order, dated 11.04.2025 in I.A.No.131 of 2025 in O.S.No.44 of 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajampet suffers from any perversity, illegality, irregularity or impropriety of law requiring any interference of this Court? 8. Learned counsel for petitioner/2nd defendant would contend that earlier, 2nd defendant filed Writ Petition No.26779 of 2024 before this Court. Vide Order, dated 10.02.2025, this Court allowed the said Writ Petition, with a direction to the Writ Petitioner therein i.e. 2nd defendant herein and the unofficial respondents Nos.6 to 8 therein, to approach the Civil Court (Junior Division), Rajampet and move an appropriate application in O.S.No.44 of 2024 for conducting the survey as well as for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to ensure that the survey has to be conducted in the presence of an Advocate-Commissioner. It was further directed that they shall also implead the official respondents, as the case may be. It was further observed in the SRK, J CRP No.2201 of 2025 6 said Order that all the parties shall cooperate with the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) in disposing of the said applications. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/ plaintiffs submitted that challenging the impugned Order, 11.04.2025, petitioner/2nd defendant filed an application before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet, seeking to set- aside the same and it is pending for consideration. 10. A perusal of material on record coupled with the contentions and rival contentions of both parties goes to show that in respect of the impugned Order, dated 11.04.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajampet, 2nd defendant already challenged the same before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet praying the Court to set-aside the ex parte Order, dated 11.04.2025 by recalling the appointment of Advocate-Commissioner and to permit 2nd defendant to advance arguments in I.A.No.131 of 2025 in O.S.No.44 of 2024 on the file of the trial Court. Having filed an application before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet, challenging the impugned Order, dated 11.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.131 of 2025 by the trial Court, there is no reason to file the present Revision Petition SRK, J CRP No.2201 of 2025 7 without exhausting the remedy, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Revision Petition is not maintainable and it is devoid of merit and force and deserves to be dismissed without going into merits of the Revision Petition. However, to meet the ends of justice, this Court directs the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet to dispose of, the application filed by the petitioner/2nd defendant challenging the impugned Order, dated 11.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.131 of 2025 in O.S.No.44 of 2024 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajampet within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 12. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this CRP shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 31st October, 2025. DNB