APHC010447892019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 30/2020 Between: 1. GUDIPUTI NARASAMMA, W/O. G. RAMANJANEYULU, AGED 69 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO.6-3-229, RAMNAGAR, ANANTHAPURAMU. ...PETITIONER AND 1. BALLA RAVI KUMAR, S/O. B. DORASWAMY NAIDU, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. MIG - 460, A.P.H.B. COLONY, ANANTHAPURAMU. PIN- 515 001. 2. GUDIPUTI RAMANJANEYULU, , S/O. LATE SUBBI REDDY, AGED 73 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.6-3-229, RAMNAGAR, ANANTHAPURAMU. PIN- 515 004. 3. GUDIPUTI RAGHAVENDRA, S/O. G. RAMANJANEYULU, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.6-3-229, RAMNAGAR, ANANTHAPURAMU. PIN- 515 004. (RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THE ABOVE CIVIL REVISION PETITION) ...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 pleased to allow this Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dt.18.11.2019' passed in I.A. No.831 of 2019 in O.S. No.110 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuranu and order re-entrustment of warrant to the same Advocate - C-ommissioner IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No.110 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M V SUBBA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N RANGA REDDY The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.30 OF 2020 ORDER : 1. The Civil Revision petition is filed, aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2019 passed in IA No. 831 of 2019 in OS No. 110 of 2014 by the learned I Additional District Judge. Ananthapuram. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petition filed seeking re-entrustment of the warrant of commission to the advocate commissioner was dismissed by the learned judge on the sole ground that the petitioner is trying to collect evidence through the advocate commissioner. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner and the respondents are contesting OS No. 110 of 2014. Whereby, the claim of the parties for title is pending adjudication. It is submitted that, to demarcate and note down the physical features of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff in the suit has filed IA No. 182 of 2019 seeking the appointment of an advocate commissioner. It is submitted that the advocate commissioner was furnished with the work memos by the plaintiff and also the defendant. 3. It is submitted that the advocate commissioner executed the warrant of commission and also submitted his report. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the advocate commissioner has not executed the warrant of commission as per the work memo submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner had also submitted his objections to the advocate commissioner's report. To obtain the warrant of commission executed in accordance with the work memo submitted by the petitioner, 3 the petitioner has filed IA no. 831 of 2019 seeking re-entrustment of the warrant of commission to the same commissioner to enable him to complete the commission in accordance with the work memo submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted that the learned judge erred in dismissing the petitioner's petition. It is also submitted that the learned judge dismissed the petition without assigning any reasons, and that the sole reason for the dismissal was that the petitioner was allegedly trying to collect evidence through the advocate commissioner. 4. It is submitted that the finding of the learned Judge is unwarranted and that in any commission appointed by the Court, the Advocate Commissioner would be bound to follow the scope of the execution of the warrant of commission, and the Advocate Commissioner would have to consider the work memos submitted by the parties contesting the suit while executing the warrant of commission. The Advocate Commissioners' report ought to refer to the work memos received by the Advocate Commissioner. It is submitted that the advocate commissioner, in his report, has categorically stated that there was no necessity to answer the work memo submitted by the petitioner. This observation of the advocate commissioner is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner and, as such, sought re-entrustment of the warrant of commission to the advocate commissioner. 5. It is also submitted that the advocate commissioner would not be entrusted with any additional work than the purpose for which the warrant 4 of commission was initially issued. And the Court's finding that the petitioner is trying to gather evidence through the advocate commissioner is unfounded and a presumption on which the court has relied in dismissing the petitioner's petition. It is submitted that no prejudice shall be caused to the respondents in re-entrusting the warrant to the advocate commissioner. And on the contrary, the same would also assist the court in disposing of the suit on the merits. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not challenged the order of appointment of the advocate commissioner. It is also submitted that the respondent and the petitioner were present when the advocate commissioner executed the warrant of commission. It is also submitted that the Re-entrustment of the warrant of commission to the advocate commissioner is only for gathering evidence through the advocate commissioner. The petitioner cannot be permitted to gather evidence through the advocate commissioner who was appointed at the instance of the respondent. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record. 8. The short point for consideration is Whether the order passed by the learned Judge dismissing the petition seeking the relief of re-entrustment of the warrant of commission to the advocate commissioner for re-conducting the Commission in terms of the work memo submitted by the petitioner deserves interference ? 9. Admittedly, the Advocate Commissioner has submitted his report, and the petitioner has also submitted objections to it. Once the Advocate 5 Commissioner has executed the warrant and submitted the report, the matter will end there. Once the warrant is executed and the report is submitted, nothing would remain for further execution or re-execution. The advocate commissioner was appointed at the behest of the respondent for the specific purpose mentioned in the IA seeking the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner. 10. The petitioner had also submitted his objections to the report of the advocate commissioner, and as such, it would be open for the learned judge to consider the relevancy of the said objections at an appropriate stage. This Court finds no grounds to interfere in the well-considered and well-reasoned order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuram. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 09.03.2026 PNS 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.30 OF 2020 Dated 09.03.2026 PNS