APHC010050332026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION Between: 1. THIRIVEEDHI RUKMINI, W/O CHENNA KESAVULU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O DR. NO. 54 1ST CROSS ROAD, KRISTURAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA. 1. BODEPUDI VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/o Rama Mohan Rao, Female, Aged about 62 years, R/o Dr. No. 33 Hanumantharaya Nagar, etharampuram, Vijayawada. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, pleased to is therefore prayed that this Hon aside the order dated 26.12.2025 in I.A. No. 162 of 2020 in O.S. No. 437 of 2020 on the file of Hon’ Division)-IV AddI Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada and pass such other order or orders as this Hon the facts and circumstances of the case. 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 pursuant to the order dated 26.12.2025 in I.A. No. 162 of 202g) in O.S. No. 437 of 2020 on the file of Honble Rent Controller 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: 346/2026 THIRIVEEDHI RUKMINI, W/O CHENNA KESAVULU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O DR. NO. 54-19-18A, 2ND LINE, JAYAPRAKASH NAGAR, 1ST CROSS ROAD, KRISTURAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA. ...PETITIONER AND BODEPUDI VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/o Rama Mohan Rao, Female, Aged about 62 years, R/o Dr. No. 33-13-8 KadiyalavariVeedhi, Hanumantharaya Nagar, etharampuram, Vijayawada. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in th circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 26.12.2025 in I.A. No. 162 of 2020 in O.S. No. 437 of ’ble Rent Controller-Cum-IV AddI Civil Judge (Junior IV AddI Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 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 pursuant to the order dated 26.12.2025 in I.A. No. O.S. No. 437 of 2020 on the file of Honble Rent Controller IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3163] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THIRIVEEDHI RUKMINI, W/O CHENNA KESAVULU, AGED ABOUT 65 18A, 2ND LINE, JAYAPRAKASH NAGAR, 1ST CROSS ROAD, KRISTURAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA. ...PETITIONER BODEPUDI VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/o Rama Mohan Rao, Female, Aged 8 KadiyalavariVeedhi, ...RESPONDENT praying that in the the High Court may be ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 26.12.2025 in I.A. No. 162 of 2020 in O.S. No. 437 of IV AddI Civil Judge (Junior IV AddI Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada and pass ble Court may deem fit and proper in 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 pursuant to the order dated 26.12.2025 in I.A. No. O.S. No. 437 of 2020 on the file of Honble Rent Controller- 2 CMR,J C.R.P.No.346 of 2026 Cum-IV AddI Civil Judge (Junior Division)-IV AddI Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada pending disposal of the subject Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SINGAMSETTY V.M. SANKAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 3 CMR,J C.R.P.No.346 of 2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.162 of 2023 in O.S.No.437 of 2020 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, whereby the petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff for appointing an advocate commissioner, to take measurements of the plaint schedule property with the help of town surveyor and to submit his report was allowed, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the defendant. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is the defendant in the above suit. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for declaration of her title in respect of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that both the plaintiff and the defendant have purchased two vacant sites adjacent to each other and thereafter, the defendant has constructed a house on the site purchased by her and in the process of construction of the house that she has encroached on to some portion of the vacant site of the plaintiff. Therefore, to find out the extent of land encroached by the defendant over the site of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure to appoint an advocate commissioner to take measurements of the plaint schedule property, as per the documents of both the plaintiff and the defendant, with the help of a town surveyor and to file his report. The said petition was allowed by the impugned order. It is the said order that is now questioned in this revision by the defendant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant vehemently contend before the Court that an advocate commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of collection of evidence and on the said ground, he sought to assail 4 CMR,J C.R.P.No.346 of 2026 the legal validity of the impugned order of the trial Court. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of K.Rafiq Basha v. Valukuru Ramakrishna and others 1 and also on the judgment rendered in the case of Vasupalli Danayya v. Pinnmaraju Srinivas and others 2 . In Rafiq Basha, this Court found fault with the order of appointing an advocate commissioner on the ground that the suit was filed for declaration of title of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property and for injunction and in such suit, the question of localization of the suit property and noting down physical features of the property does not arise. In Vasupalli Danayya, the Court found fault with the order of appointment of an advocate commissioner on the ground that when the suit is for perpetual injunction, the burden of proof to establish lawful possession over the suit schedule property is on the plaintiff and when the identity and location of the suit schedule property is not in controversy, there is no need to appoint an advocate commissioner. Facts of the case in both the aforesaid reported judgments are totally distinguishable. The present case on hand stands on a different footing. Here is a case, as already discussed, where it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant, while constructing her house on her vacant site, has encroached on to the vacant site of the plaintiff to some extent. Therefore, she sought for declaration of the title in respect of the said property and sought for injunction. Therefore, whether there is an encroachment made on to the vacant site of the plaintiff by the defendant, while constructing her house, or not, is the material question to be decided in the suit. For that purpose, unless an advocate commissioner is appointed to take measurements of the properties of both the plaintiff and the defendant with the help of qualified surveyor, whether the defendant has encroached on to the site of the plaintiff or not cannot be decided. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the factual aspects involved in the suit, the trial Court rightly appointed an advocate commissioner for the aforesaid purpose. 1 2024 (5) ALT 514 2 2023 (6) ALT 437 5 CMR,J C.R.P.No.346 of 2026 This Court finds no illegality or legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order, warranting its interference with the said order. The impugned order is perfectly sustainable under law in the given facts and circumstances of the case. When there is no patent illegality or manifest error of law on the face of the impugned order, this Court cannot, in exercise of its power of revision, interfere with the impugned order. 5. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, affirming the order of the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 06.02.2026 MDP