Date of reserved for orders :17.09.2026 Date of pronouncement : 30.09.2026 Date of uploading : 30.09.2026 APHC010429122026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 30 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2308/2026 Between: 1. JOGI SAVITRI, W/O. CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, AGED 44 YEARS, RIO. D.NO. 2-6, KUMMARIPETA V, CHITTIVALASA POST, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SR 1. CHINCHILI KAMESWARA RAO, S/O. SOMULU, AGED 35 YEARS, R/AT. D.NO. 2-15, MAIN STREET, KUMMARIPETA V, CHITTIVALASA POST, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 532 185 2. CHINCHILI SATYANARAYANA, S/O. R/AT. D.NO. 2-15, MAIN STREET, KUMMARIPETA V, CHITTIVALASA POST, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 532185 3. CHINCHILI SOMULU, S/O. LATE RAMULU, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT. D.NO. 2-15, MAIN STREET, KUMMARIPETA V, CHITTIVALASA POST, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 532185 CRP No.2308 of 2026 1 17.09.2026 30.09.2026 30.09.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2308/2026 JOGI SAVITRI, W/O. CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, AGED 44 YEARS, 6, KUMMARIPETA V, CHITTIVALASA POST, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND CHINCHILI KAMESWARA RAO, S/O. SOMULU, AGED 35 YEARS, 15, MAIN STREET, KUMMARIPETA V, CHITTIVALASA POST, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 532 CHINCHILI SATYANARAYANA, S/O. SOMULU,AGED 33 YEARS, 15, MAIN STREET, KUMMARIPETA V, CHITTIVALASA POST, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. CHINCHILI SOMULU, S/O. LATE RAMULU, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT. 15, MAIN STREET, KUMMARIPETA V, CHITTIVALASA , AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): RC,J CRP No.2308 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI JOGI SAVITRI, W/O. CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, AGED 44 YEARS, 6, KUMMARIPETA V, CHITTIVALASA POST, ...PETITIONER CHINCHILI KAMESWARA RAO, S/O. SOMULU, AGED 35 YEARS, 15, MAIN STREET, KUMMARIPETA V, CHITTIVALASA POST, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 532 SOMULU,AGED 33 YEARS, 15, MAIN STREET, KUMMARIPETA V, CHITTIVALASA POST, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. CHINCHILI SOMULU, S/O. LATE RAMULU, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT. 15, MAIN STREET, KUMMARIPETA V, CHITTIVALASA , AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): RC,J CRP No.2308 of 2026 2 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 aggrieved by the Decretal Order dated 18.07.2026 passed in I.A. No.435 of 2026 in I.A. No.341 of 2023 in O.S. No.96 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Amadalavalasa IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 stay of all further proceedings in OS No.96 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Amadalavalasa pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CHINNALA PRAVEEN The Court made the following: RC,J CRP No.2308 of 2026 3 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 18.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.435 of 2026 in I.A.No.341 of 2023 in O.S.No.96 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavasala. 2. The petitioner filed the suit vide O.S.No.96 of 2023 for permanent injunction. In the said suit the respondents who were defendants filed I.A.No.435 of 2026 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and exact boundaries of the property with the help of the revenue records available with both the parties and also with the assistance of revenue officials, contending that the boundaries mentioned in the schedule and actually available on ground are different. The petitioner contested the petition by filing counter contending that the same would amount to collection of evidence. The learned trial Judge allowed the petition and the said order was assailed in this Civil Revision Petition. 3. Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Chinnala Praveen, learned counsel for respondents. 4. Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before the trial Court, contentions advanced therein and the grounds of the Civil Revision Petition, would contend that existence of correct boundaries on ground must be established by adducing RC,J CRP No.2308 of 2026 4 evidence but not by appointment of Advocate Commissioner, which would amount to collection of evidence, which is impermissible under law. He would further contend that merely because the defendants raised dispute regarding exactness of the boundaries, the trial Court should not have appointed Advocate commissioner and the falsity of boundaries can only be substantiated by the defendants by adducing evidence and placing documents but not by way of appointment of a commissioner. Therefore, the order of the learned trial Judge is perverse, untenable and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 5. On the other hand, Sri Chinnala Praveen, learned counsel for respondents, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the trial Court and the contentions raised therein, would contend that no doubt advocate commissioner cannot be appointed for fishing out evidence but the purpose of appointing Advocate commissioner in this case would not amount to fishing of evidence but an effort to place a clear picture before the court for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter. He would further contend that there is neither illegality nor perversity in the orders impugned and the said order does not require interference of this Court and the Civil Revision Petition being meritless is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. RC,J CRP No.2308 of 2026 5 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The main flank of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an advocate commissioner cannot be appointed fixation or falsification of the boundaries furnished by the plaintiff. 8. In M.L. Srinivas Rao v. J. Kurien1 , a coordinate bench of this Court held that The High Court held that an Advocate Commissioner can be legally appointed to resolve a boundary dispute between parties, even in a suit filed for a permanent/perpetual injunction. In Pandiri Pedda Saidaiah and others v. Thirunagairi Padmavathi2, a coordinate bench of this Court held that commissioner’s can be appointed for fixing up boundaries. In Haryana Wakf Board v. Shanti Sarup and others3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed for boundary demarcation. 9. In view of the above, the ultimate conclusion reached by the learned trial Judge in appointing the Advocate Commissioner for localizing the suit schedule property and the boundaries of the suit schedule with the help of mandal surveyor is justified and it does not require any interference of this Court. The Civil Revision Petition being meritless deserves dismissal. 1. 1997 (1) APLJ 61 (SN) 2 1997 SCC OnLine AP 534 3. (2008) 8 SCC 671 RC,J CRP No.2308 of 2026 6 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 30th September, 2026. RR Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No