APHC010057492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday,the twenty eight The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition Between: K. Venkat Reddy and others and A.Ranjith Kumar Counsel for the petitioners: 1. G. Sravan Kumar Counsel for the respondent: 1. G.Mani Kumar The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) the twenty eighth day of August, two thousand and twenty Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.309 of 2025 K. Venkat Reddy and others ...Petitioners ...Respondent etitioners: Counsel for the respondent: The Court made the following: [3311] twenty five ...Petitioners ...Respondent 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.309 of 2025 ORDER: This revision is filed aggrieved by the docket order, dated 27.11.2024, passed in I.A.No.34 of 2024 in O.S.No.1033 of 2023 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI, Rule 9 and Section 151 C.P.C. to appoint an advocate commissioner by directing him to inspect the petition schedule property, on the urgent process, for the purpose of investigation by directing him to take the assistance of Municipal Surveyor, Kurnool, and to file his report with sketches thereof into Court. 2. The facts, briefly stated in the petition, are as follows: The plaintiff brought suit against the defendants seeking the relief of permanent injunction and to pass a decree in his favour. The defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement. Even after filing of the suit, on 09.11.2023 and 15.11.2023, the defendants tried to encroach into and highhandedly occupy the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff presented a complaint to III Town Police Station, Kurnool, against the defendants and their men. At the time of enquiry before the Circle Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Kurnool, the defendants stated that already a suit in respect of plot No.7 in Sy.No.719-A of Kallur, on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, in O.S.No.791 of 2016 filed by Sarath Kumar Reddy though his G.P.A. holder, Shivalinga Reddy is pending. Both the plaint schedule open site and the plot No.7 are situated at different places in the same survey number. The police advised both the parties to file petition for appointment of an advocate commissioner. Therefore, the plaintiff filed petition with a prayer to appoint an advocate commissioner. 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.309 of 2025 3. The respondents filed counter denying the allegations and stating that the petition is not maintainable. 4. The trial Court allowed the petition on 22.01.2024 and appointed an advocate commissioner and issued a warrant with the following directions: “ Hence, Sri Shaik Khadar Basha is hereby appointed as an advocate commissioner to inspect the petition schedule property and also 13 plots in Sy.No.719/A and note down the physical features and measurement of the same, with assistance of Municipal Surveyor, Kurnool. Further directed to file detailed report with sketches thereof of Municipal Surveyor, Municipal Corporation, Kurnool. Further the Advocate Commissioner is hereby directed to issue notices to both the parties and also their respective counsel, before inspecting the petition schedule property by taking work memos from both counsels.” 5. The commissioner filed a preliminary report. The observations made in the preliminary report read as follows: “3.… … … I perused the warrant directions once again and found that it is very impossible for measuring each plot located in Survey No.719/A of Kallur village this juncture, because the purchasers of the respective plots already constructed the shops and house buildings therein. If I measure each and every plot, provided by the respondents counsel, with assistance of the Municipal Surveyor, KMC, Kurnool, it leads to drag on 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.309 of 2025 the other dwellers in the respective plots, unnecessarily into litigation. 4. It is submitted that as per my observation, the dispute is in between the petitioner and the respondents only in the suit. While at the time of raising objection on both sides, meanwhile I observed that, out of 13 plots, except the respondents and petitioner remaining owners of the plots are in peace and enjoyment of the same by constructing their houses and shops therein, as per the layout plan provided by the respondents’ counsel as well as petitioner’s counsel. Surprisingly I also noticed the same plan with the Municipal Surveyor. Therefore, I concluded that there is no dispute about the existence of the 13 plots as per the non-approved layout plan. It is submitted that, the petitioner’s counsel objected for measuring the 13 plots at this juncture by giving reasoning that it leads unnecessarily litigation to drag on the issue as the litigation between petitioner and respondents only. 5. It is further submitted that I too observed the situation that the dispute is going on in between the plaintiff and defendants only as such I felt that, the dispute to measure the two plots of the petitioner / plaintiff and respondents / defendants on the ground. 6. It is further submitted that, I observed the physical features in both disputed plots. In one of the plots, the bar and restaurant is in existing under the name and style of “New Divya Bar and Restaurant” and carrying on business therein by the respondents. Whereas in 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.309 of 2025 another plot of the petitioner’s bricks and the constructions were recently made and they were demolished. The debris of demolition of building is appearing here and ground pillars there with heaps. Therefore, I am unable to proceed with measurement of each and every plot as per the plan provided by the both parties with assistance of Municipal Surveyor, Kurnool, because, the respondent’s counsel stated that the measurement of the 13 plots are necessary to measure the same. Whereas the petitioner’s counsel stated that, the dispute is going on in between the petitioner / plaintiff and respondents / defendants only pertaining to their respective plots as such there is no necessity to measure the 13 plots and further stated that, it leads drag on the persons unnecessarily into the litigation. Due to rival objections I stated the parties to get clarification from the Hon’ble Court for measuring the plot at warrant schedule locality. Hence I return along with municipal surveyor, Kurnool from warrant schedule locality and accordingly, I filed the preliminary report. Hence, I am filing this preliminary report with my observations.” 6. The respondents / defendants filed objections stating as follows: 1) The advocate commissioner is appointed in the above I.A.No.314 of 2023 in O.S.No.1033 of 2023 to measure the plots laid in Sy.No.719/A of Kallur Panchayat limits with the help of Mandal Surveyor. 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.309 of 2025 2) The petitioner filed the above said petition for measuring the suit schedule property only but the respondents filed a counter in the above said petition stating that when the Honorable Court ordered to measure all the plots which laid in Sy.No.719/A of Kallur Panchayat limits. After hearing both sides, the trial Court appointed the advocate commissioner to note down the physical features and suit schedule locality and also to measure all the plots laid in Sy.No.719/A with the help of Municipal Corporation Surveyor, Kurnool. 3) The advocate commissioner and Municipal Surveyor came to the suit locality and tried to measure the only suit schedule site but the respondents advocate objected the same without measuring all the plots the suit schedule property will be traced out. The advocate commissioner requested the respondents to supply the registered sale deed with regard to all the 13 plots. By that time the respondents agreed to supply the sale deeds to the Advocate Commissioner. As such, the advocate commissioner postponed the same to some other date. 4) Subsequently, the respondents came to know that the advocate commissioner filed his part of report before this Hon’ble Court without complying the Court order. The said part of report of Advocate Commissioner is bias. Hence, this objections.” 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.309 of 2025 7. By docket order, dated 27.11.2024, the trial Court suo motu reopened the matter and passed the order impugned in this revision petition. It reads as follows: “This petition is suo motu reopened as the advocate commissioner filed only preliminary report and on perusal of the objections filed by the counsel for respondent, it is found that warrant has not been executed properly. In the interest of justice, this report filed by the advocate commissioner is scarped and re-entrusting the warrant to the advocate commissioner, S.Khadar Basha, advocate to measure the plaint schedule property and the respective plot in Sy.No.719/A and note down its features with the assistance of Municipal Surveyor, Kurnool and the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.1200/- to advocate commissioner as his fee and advocate commissioner is directed to issue notice to both counsels and parties intimating the date of execution of warrant and meantime directed to receive work memos from each counsel etc. For report, call on 08.01.2025.” 8. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents / defendants preferred this revision petition raising mainly the following grounds: i) The trial Court ought not to have reviewed its earlier order, dated 22.01.2024; ii) The trial Court ought to have seen that both parties reported no objection at the time of hearing to measure all 13 plots; 8 BSB, J C.R.P.No.309 of 2025 iii) The trial Court ought to have considered that to settle the dispute all the 13 plots laid in Sy.No.719/A of Kallur village as per the sale deeds of the owners of 13 plots and to fix the boundary stones; 9. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the original order passed on 22.01.2024 appointing the commissioner to measure all thirteen (13) plots had been modified by the subsequent order, dated 27.11.2024 without there being any review sought by either party, but just based on the report of the commissioner expressing difficulty and also the assumption of possible litigation. As neither party challenged the order, dated 22.01.2024, passing the impugned order, dated 27.11.2024 is incorrect. Moreover, the respondents before the trial Court, stated in the objections that they agreed to supply the sale deeds to the commissioner. Therefore, so long as the original order is not set aside, the trial Court cannot modify its earlier order merely based on the preliminary report of the commissioner. Further, it is erroneous to scrap the earlier report of the commissioner which is the basis for the impugned order, without assigning any reason for scrapping the report. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside with suitable directions. 10. In the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the docket order, dated 27.11.2024, in I.A.No.34 of 2024 in O.S.No.1033 of 2023 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The trial Court is directed to provide an opportunity to both parties to advance their arguments on the preliminary report of the commissioner; and thereafter, pass an order afresh. 9 BSB, J C.R.P.No.309 of 2025 There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.28.08.2025 RAR