APHC010546012024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3064/2024 Between: 1. RAYANI MAHALAKSHMAMMA, (DIED). 2. RAYANI SAMBASIVA RAO,, S/O RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE R/O SOPIRALA, CHINNAGANJAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 3. RAYANI VENKATESWARLU,, S/O RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE R/O AYAKAR BHAVAN, BABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. RAYANI KOTESWARA RAO, , S/O RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, R/O SOPIRALA, CHINNAGANJAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. ANKIREDDY VIJAYALAKSHMI,, W/O YANADI RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, R/O 4-6-6, AGRAHARAM, 1ST LINE, BAPATLA. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. ULICHI SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARLU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATOR, R/O. SOPIRALA, CHINNAGANJAM MANDAL, PRAKASAMDISTICT. 2. KUNCHALA VENKATA SRINIVASA RAO, , S/O VENKATESWARLU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC 2 EMPLOYEE, R/O SOPIRALA, CHINNAGANJAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. KUNCHALA ADILAKSHMI, W/O. VENKATA BALA SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O SOPIRALA, CHINNAGANJAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM 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 pleased to allow this CRP by setting aside the Order passed by the Learned Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, Prakasam district in I.A.No.1614 of 2024 in O.S No 43 of 2013 dated 23.10.2024 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 43 of 2013 pending on the file of Hon’ble Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, Prakasam district and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SHAIK ASIF Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.No.1614 of 2024 in O.S.No.43 of 2013 dated 23.10.2024 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit filed for injunction. 3. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1614 of 2024 under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the plaint schedule sites and for fixing the boundaries for the highway on the northern side viz., demarcating the highway. The said application has been opposed by the petitioner defendants denying the allegations inter alia contending that the question of appointing an advocate commissioner at the stage of argument does not arise and further the plaintiff wants to gather evidence which is not permissible under law. The Court below allowed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. Heard Ms.Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants while reiterating the contents of the counter and the grounds of revision contended that only to drag on the suit at the time of arguments, the said application has been filed. Further, the plaintiff has to rely on the evidence that was let in 4 but cannot gather evidence and it is not permissible under law. The Court below failed to look into the said principle and erroneously allowed the said application. The Court below also failed to see the purport of Order XXVI Rule 9 in right perspective and if such order is allowed and the commissioner is appointed and measured the suit schedule property, prejudice will be caused to the petitioners/defendants. In fact, the petitioners’ earlier got filed a suit O.S.No.119 of 2000 against third party for injunction. The same has been decreed and the appeal was also dismissed. The plaint filed in the suit was also filed before this Court along with the written statement that was also part of record. In the said circumstances, appointing an advocate commissioner does not arise, accordingly prayed to allow the Revision and dismiss the I.A.No.1614 of 2024. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit in support of the application contended that the Court has to look into the aspect of whether any prejudice will be caused to the defendants while appointing an advocate commissioner. If such application is filed at the earlier stage, it would amount to gathering of evidence but if it is filed after certain evidence is let in, it cannot be said for gathering of evidence. The plaintiffs have filed the said application at right time i.e., after letting in evidence. The Court below has rightly allowed the same and no prejudice 5 would be caused to the petitioners herein/defendants. The commissioner report will come as an aid to the Court in understanding dispute and the same does not amount to gathering of evidence. The purpose of appointing an advocate commissioner is to identify the physical features, measurements or boundary disputes relevant to the injunction suit. The Court has discretion to appoint advocate commissioner at any stage of the suit. No valid grounds neither raised nor urged warranting interference of this Court, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Revision. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Plaintiffs/respondents herein in suit for injunction filed I.A.No.1614 of 2024 on the ground that the property which was purchased by the plaintiffs are adjacent to each other and are situated on the southern side of the R&B road. The defendants/petitioners herein own site on the southern side of the plaint schedule site. When they are trying to interfere with the suit schedule property, the said suit has been filed. If the petitioners sites are measured after demarcating the R&B road, the true measurements will come to the light. Earlier point of time defendants have not cooperated for demarcating R&B road and to fix the correct boundaries of the plaint schedule sites. The commissioner’s report with survey sketch will be helpful for just conclusion of the suit. 6 9. The Court below, after hearing both the parties, came to a conclusion that on appointing an advocate commissioner and if boundaries are fixed, no prejudice would be caused to the other side. Moreover, if the boundaries are fixed it will be helpful to the Court to come to just conclusion and accordingly appointed an advocate commissioner to measure the plaint schedule sites after fixing the boundaries from the highway on the northern side and demarcate the highway with the help of Mandal Surveyor. As rightly held by the learned trial Court mere appointment of an advocate commissioner for the said purpose, will not be cause any prejudice to the petitioners herein. The purpose of the application is for demarcation of the disputed land and the Court below rightly directed to investigate by appointing an advocate commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9. Further, the commissioner’s report is not a conclusive proof and it only come as an aid in deciding the suit. No grounds have been raised warranting the interference of this Court, as such, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. 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 RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 12th February, 2026 RKS