APHC010575652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION Between: 1. VUSA LAKSHNNI KANTHAMMA, W/O. NANCHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.15/207/2A MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT 1. KATARI RAMA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/o. Rama Krishna Gandhi, Aged about 65 years. House wife, R/o. D.NO.15/207 Machilipatnam, Krishna District Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, pleased to set aside the order dated 06 A.S.No.18 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam consequently allow the I.A.No.287 pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 A.S.No.18 of the Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam pending disposal of main Revision Petition and pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3011/2025 VUSA LAKSHNNI KANTHAMMA, W/O. NANCHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.15/207/2A-40, MACHAVARAM, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND KATARI RAMA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/o. Rama Krishna Gandhi, Aged about 65 years. House wife, R/o. D.NO.15/207-41-A, Machavaram, Machilipatnam, Krishna District ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the tances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be set aside the order dated 06-10-2025 in I.A.No.287/2024 in A.S.No.18 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam consequently allow the I.A.No.287/2024 in A.S.No.18/2024 and 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 A.S.No.18/2024 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam pending disposal of main Revision Petition and pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3163] THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY VUSA LAKSHNNI KANTHAMMA, W/O. NANCHARAIAH, AGED 40, MACHAVARAM, ...PETITIONER KATARI RAMA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/o. Rama Krishna Gandhi, Aged A, Machavaram, ...RESPONDENT praying that in the the High Court may be 2025 in I.A.No.287/2024 in A.S.No.18 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishna at /2024 in A.S.No.18/2024 and 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 /2024 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam pending disposal of 2 CMR,J C.R.P.No.3011 of 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY 3 CMR,J C.R.P.No.3011 of 2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: The order, dismissing the petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of an advocate commissioner to locate the plaint schedule property, is questioned in this civil revision petition by the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the plaint for the sake of convenience. 4. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The suit was filed against her for declaration of title of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of the possession of the plaint schedule property. During the course of trial in the trial Court, the plaintiff herself has filed an application for appointment of an advocate commissioner to note the physical features of the plaint schedule property. The said petition was allowed and an advocate commissioner was appointed. The advocate commissioner has filed his report, stating that he could not identify and localize the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the measurements of the property could not be taken. After the trial, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant has filed an appeal in A.S.No.18 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Krishna. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendant has filed an application now for appointment of an advocate commissioner to localize the plaint schedule property. The said petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order. 4 CMR,J C.R.P.No.3011 of 2025 5. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is preferred by the defendant. 6. As noticed supra, an advocate commissioner was already appointed in the trial Court and he has filed his report clearly stating that he could not localize the plaint schedule property. Therefore, when the advocate commissioner has clearly filed report stating that he could not localize the plaint schedule property, it is really beyond the comprehension of this Court as to why the defendant has filed an application again for the same purpose of localizing the plaint schedule property, as the commissioner has already filed his report stating that he could localize the property. Apart from that when the report of the advocate commissioner stating that he could not localize the plaint schedule property was already accepted by the trial Court, it is settled law that the second commissioner cannot be appointed without setting aside the said report or scraping the said report. So, even on that ground also, the second petition for appointment of an advocate commissioner is not maintainable and it cannot be entertained. 7. The Kerala High Court has also held in the case of Balakrishna Menon and another v. Padmavathy Amma and another1 that appointment of second commissioner without setting aside the report of the first commissioner is illegal. 8. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of an advocate commissioner to localize the plaint schedule property. This Court finds no legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order. So, it warrants no interference in this revision. 1 AIR 1993 K 218 5 CMR,J C.R.P.No.3011 of 2025 9. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 23.01.2026 MDP