APHC010046952026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION Between: 1. YADALA AJAY KUMAR GOWD,, S/O. YADALA SRINIVAS RAO, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.7 VILLAGE, IBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT 1. JANGA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O. BABU RAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. 12409, FLUNTERS GREEN COURT, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78732, USA., REP.BY REGISTERED GPA AGENT, MR. VUPELA SATYANARAYANA, S/O. NARSI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.54 BHARATHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA 2. VUPELA SATYANARAYANA, S/O. NARSI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.54 NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA 3. MITRA AUTO AGENCIES PVT LTD, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR, CHERUVU SRINIVAS, S/O. ANJANEYA SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.32 MAHALAKSHIMI CHAMBERS, MOGHALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, circumstances stated in the grounds filed here IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 301/2026 YADALA AJAY KUMAR GOWD,, S/O. YADALA SRINIVAS RAO, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.7-57, THUMALAPALEM VILLAGE, IBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND JANGA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O. BABU RAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. 12409, FLUNTERS GREEN COURT, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78732, USA., REP.BY REGISTERED GPA AGENT, MR. VUPELA SATYANARAYANA, S/O. NARSI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.54-14-6/1, 12TH CROSS ROAD, BHARATHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA - 52008. VUPELA SATYANARAYANA, S/O. NARSI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.54-14-6/1, 12TH CROSS ROAD, BHARATHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA - 52008. MITRA AUTO AGENCIES PVT LTD, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR, CHERUVU SRINIVAS, S/O. ANJANEYA SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.32-2-6, GROUND FLOOR, MADHU MAHALAKSHIMI CHAMBERS, MOGHALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3163] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY YADALA AJAY KUMAR GOWD,, S/O. YADALA SRINIVAS RAO, 57, THUMALAPALEM VILLAGE, IBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT - 521 241. ...PETITIONER JANGA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O. BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. 12409, FLUNTERS GREEN COURT, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78732, USA., REP.BY REGISTERED GPA AGENT, MR. VUPELA SATYANARAYANA, S/O. NARSI REDDY, AGED 6/1, 12TH CROSS ROAD, VUPELA SATYANARAYANA, S/O. NARSI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 6/1, 12TH CROSS ROAD, BHARATHI MITRA AUTO AGENCIES PVT LTD, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR, CHERUVU SRINIVAS, S/O. ANJANEYA SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 58 6, GROUND FLOOR, MADHU MAHALAKSHIMI CHAMBERS, MOGHALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, ...RESPONDENT(S): praying that in the the High Court may be 2 CMR,J C.R.P.No.301 of 2026 pleased to Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the Order Dated 17.12.2025 in I.A.No.352 of 2025 in O.S.No.209 of 2023 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada, Krishna District., 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 to stay all further proceedings of IA.No.324 of 2025 in O.S.No.209 of 2023 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above CRP before this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S DILIP JAYA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 CMR,J C.R.P.No.301 of 2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is preferred against the order dated 17.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.352 of 2025 in O.S.No.209 of 2023 on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada, whereby, the petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, for appointment of an advocate commissioner, to note the physical features of the lease hold premises was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.209 of 2023 on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs and respondent No.3 herein is the 2nd defendant in the said suit. The respondents are the owners of the subject property, which is the lease hold premises. The petitioner is the tenant in respect of the subject property. On the ground that the petitioner has committed default in payment of rents, the respondents have filed the said suit for his eviction. The said suit is now pending trial before the trial Court. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner, being the 1st defendant in the suit, filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the lease hold premises. According to the petitioner, there are no amenities like bore well, compound wall etc., and as such, he did not pay the rent due to the owners. Therefore, he has filed the said application to appoint an advocate commissioner to inspect the lease hold premises and note down the physical features and to ascertain whether there is any bore well, compound wall and other amenities in the said lease hold premises or not. 5. The said petition was dismissed by the impugned order by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is preferred by the petitioner. 4 CMR,J C.R.P.No.301 of 2026 6. The suit is only filed for eviction of the petitioner from the lease hold premises on the ground that he has committed default in payment of rents. Therefore, strictly speaking, the details relating to the amenities that are existing in the lease hold premises are not at all relevant in the context to decide the lis in the said suit. The tenancy is not denied. Admittedly, the petitioner is the tenant in respect of the lease hold premises. So, the only issue involved in the suit is to ascertain whether the petitioner has committed default in payment of rents and thereby rendered himself liable for eviction or not. To decide the said issue, there is no necessity to note down the physical features of the lease hold premises. Even, if there is any condition in the lease agreement that the owner has to provide the bore well and the compound wall and other amenities and even if they are not provided, it cannot afford a justifiable ground for the petitioner to commit default in payment of rents. If, no such amenities are provided, he can initiate appropriate legal proceedings to provide the said amenities in terms of the lease agreement. But, he cannot commit default in payment of rents. So, even if the advocate commissioner is appointed and if he finds that the said amenities are not existing, ultimately no useful purpose will be served to justify the case of the petitioner in committing default in payment of rents. 7. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the said petition and declined to appoint an advocate commissioner. The trial Court is right in arriving at a conclusion that no local investigation is necessary for proper adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. 8. This Court finds no legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the trial Court, warranting interference in this revision. There is no patent illegality or apparent error of law on the face of the order of the trial Court to entertain this revision. 9. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 CMR,J C.R.P.No.301 of 2026 As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 06.02.2026 MDP