APHC010617682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3177/2025 Between: 1. PEDDAKOTLA HARIKRISHNA, S/O. LATE PEDDAKOTIA CHINNA GOVINDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARSJ AGRICULTURIST AND BUSINESS, HINDU, R/O. H. NO. 38/23, MINCHIN BAZAR, KURNOOL. 2. PEDDAKOTLA VIJAYALAKSHMI,, W/O. PEDDAKOTLA HARIKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. H. NO. 38/23, MINCHIN BAZAR, KURNOOL. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. KHAMERUDDIN NASEERUDDIN, S/O. LATE K. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDENT OF H. NO. MIG-60, A.P. HOUSING BOARD COLONY, B CAMP, KURNOOL. 2. KHAMERUDDIN NUARATHU ZOHARA, D/O K NEERUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. H. NO. MIG-60, A.P. HOUSING BOARD COLONY, B CAMP, KURNOOL. ...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 topleased to allow the present Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 10.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.635 of 2025 in I.A. No. 215 of 2024 in O.S. No. 314 of 2024 pending on the file of the Hon'ble III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 HBKM,J C.R.P.No.3177 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 pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the order dated 10.11.2025 in I.A. No.635 of 2025 in I.A. No. 215 of 2024 in O.S. No. 314 of 2024 on the file of the Hon’ble III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to stay the order dated 10.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.635 of 2025 in I.A. No. 215 of 2024 in O.S. No. 314 of 2024 on the file of the Hon'ble III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY 3 HBKM,J C.R.P.No.3177 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This revision is filed against the order in I.A.No.635 of 2025 in I.A.No.215 of 2024 in O.S.No.314 of 2024 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool dated 10.11.2025. 3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the suit and the respondents in the above said I.A. The respondents herein are the defendants in the suit and the petitioners in the above said I.A. 4. The petitioners/plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.314 of 2024 against the respondents on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Kurnool, seeking to declare the easementary right of way shown as “EFGH” in the Plaint plan measuring 15 feet width from the rastha up to the land in “A” Schedule through the “C” Schedule land from West to East through the main gate of “A” Schedule land, to grant permanent injunction against the defendants and to declare the Registered Sale Deed vide document No.11008 of 2020 dated 13.10.2020 as only null and void. 5. The suit schedule contains schedules A, B and C. While so, pending the suit the respondents/defendants filed the above said I.A. under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC praying the Court to conduct survey of the disputed land in Sy.No.236/1F, Chetlamallapuram Village under the Supervision of Advocate 4 HBKM,J C.R.P.No.3177 of 2025 Commissioner by the Deputy Director of Survey and land records. The said application was considered on merits after hearing both the plaintiffs and the defendants. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the recital of the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of Sri Sindhe Rajashekar Rao dated 19.06.2020, who is the plaintiffs vendor to show that there is a 15 feet rastha through the gate for the ingress and egress to the schedule property. 7. He further contends that since the 1st defendant admitted that there is a rastha as per the said recital, then there is no need to appoint any Advocate Commissioner as contended by the 1st defendant before the trial Court in the above said I.A. 8. However, the trial Court upon consideration of the submissions made by both the parties, allowed the said I.A. by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the petition schedule mentioned property to note down the physical features to measure the suit schedule property and to note down, whether there is a passage and encroachment with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, giving liberty to take photographs and CD of the schedule mentioned property on the expenses of the petitioners/defendants, if they are required. Further the Advocate Commissioner was directed to issue notices to both the parties as well as the counsels representing them before visiting the schedule property with a further direction to answer the work memos filed by either of the parties. Assailing the said order this revision is 5 HBKM,J C.R.P.No.3177 of 2025 filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs and the counsel for the petitioners mainly contends that there shall not be any collection of evidence for the defendant under the guise of appointing an Advocate Commissioner. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the above said I.A. was filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner only to conduct survey of the disputed land in Sy.No.236/1F of the said village and the Advocate Commissioner will restrict his duties only in accordance with law and upon consideration of the rival submissions made before the trial Court, the above said order was passed dated 10.11.2025 rightly by the trial Court, which does not require any interference. 10. Upon consideration of the rival submissions made and in the light of the above said facts and circumstances, it is to be seen that one of the main relief sought in the suit is claiming rastha over the Plaint “A” schedule property to an extent of 15 feet width from the rastha up to the land in “A” Schedule through the “C” Schedule land from West to East through the main gate of “A” Schedule land and for the purpose of the same, the plaintiffs relied upon the above said recital of the said sale deed dated 19.06.2020. Against the said easementary right over the rastha the plaintiffs are also seeking grant of permanent injunction against the defendants before the trial Court in the above said suit. Now that the defendants filed the above said I.A. for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and as such it shall be restricted only to the extent of noting down the physical features of the Plaint “A” Schedule 6 HBKM,J C.R.P.No.3177 of 2025 property with the help of the Mandal Surveyor. The Advocate Commissioner shall not express any opinion with regard to the disputed questions of facts and issues involved in the said suit. 11. The Advocate Commissioner shall not also cross the boundaries of the works memo given by the parties concerned while executing the warrant of Advocate Commissioner. He shall inspect the petition schedule property/plaint “A” Schedule property and he shall also note down the physical features as it is, which are available on the ground by drawing necessary sketch with the assistance of the technical person/the Mandal Surveyor. But he shall not give any opinion on the disputed claims of the parties over the rastha. Only to that extent the order of the trial Court dated 10.11.2025 is modified, the other portion of the order of the trial Court is not interfered with. 12. The Advocate Commissioner shall execute the warrant in the presence of both the parties concerned and their counsels giving due opportunity and the necessary report shall be submitted before the Court within time as directed by the trial Court from the date of receipt of this order and for the purpose of executing the warrant of the Advocate Commissioner both the parties and their counsels shall cooperate. 13. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Interim order if any deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 HBKM,J C.R.P.No.3177 of 2025 As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN 08.01.2026 PGT