APHC010674772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 117/2026 Between: 1. KARUMURI @ KARUMUDI VENKATARATNAM @ VENKATARATNAMMA, W/O. SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUNDLAPALLI VILLAGE, MADDIPADU MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KOTA VENKATA RAO, S/O. KODANDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O KURRAVANIPALEM VILLAGE, KORLSAPADU MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 2. JARLAMUDI KOTESWARAMMA, , W/O. RAMAJANEYULU. AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. KURRAVANIPALEM VILLAGE, KORISAPADU MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 3. JAGARLAMUDI RAMANJANEYULU, S/O. RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/B. KURRAVANIPALEM VILLAGE, KORISAPADU MANDAL, BAPATLA 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 topleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 12/08/2025 in I.A. No. 531 of 2025 in O.S. No. 201 of 2024 on the file of the Honble Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Addanki, whereunder 2 dismissed the petition filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, and pass 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 pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 201 of 2024 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal junior Civil Judge court, Addanki, pending the. Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PENUMAKA VENKATA RAO The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.117 of 2026 ORDER:- The revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.531 of 2025 in O.S.No.201 of 2024 on the file of Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are defendants in the Suit. For the sake of convenience of this Court, the parties are referred herein as arrayed in the Suit. 3. The petitioner herein/ plaintiff instituted a suit vide O.S.No.201 of 2024 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering in any manner with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. While so, the plaintiff herself filed I.A.No.531 of 2025 under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Sections 94 and 151 of CPC, seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property, to observe existing physical features including boundaries for the suit schedule property and to get schedule property measured with metes and bounds by the mandal surveyor and to note down the other existing features if any that may be brought to his notice and to file his report with plan to the court by answering the work memos if any given at the time of his inspection. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/ plaintiff was granted ad-interim injunction and the respondents filed vacate petition and 4 insisting for hearing the matter. He further submits that the petitioner acquired the subject property through a registered Will deed dated 30.12.1995 duly executed by her maternal grandmother in favour of the petitioner and her mother. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff acquired the D-schedule property under a registered Will dated 28.07.1993 covering part of the suit schedule property i.e., Ac.0.73½ cents in Sy.No.896 of Ravunuthala Village duly executed by her maternal grandfather. He also contended that there is another registered Will executed on 30.12.1995 by maternal grandmother in favour of the petitioner and her mother with regard to the rest of the land in Sy.No.896 of Ravinuthala Village. By which, she became absolute owner and possessor of Ac.1.46½ cents in Sy.No.896/2 i.e., the suit schedule property. Pursuant to same, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. He further submits that after considering the mode of acquisition by the petitioner, the trial Court was pleased to grant ad-interim injunction in her favour. Since the defendants also claiming rights over the property stating that they were in possession of the property, it is most appropriate to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property along with measurements to identify the property. Therefore, the petitioner herein filed I.A. seeking for appointment of an advocate commissioner to mark and measure the boundaries. But the trial Court, erroneously dismissed the said application on the ground that the present application is filed in order to drag the matter and to avoid the enquiry and hearing in respect of I.A.No.1321/2024, 5 where ad-interim injunction was granted. Therefore, the reasons assailed by the trial court are contrary to the law and liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioner claiming as the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property filing the interlocutory application for appointment of an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features and measurements is contrary to her own pleading of possession over the subject property. He further submits that the subject Suit is filed for bare injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the subject property of the petitioner. Therefore, when a bare injunction was pleaded by the petitioner, it should be decided basing upon the evidence and documents filed along with IA but cannot be permitted to gather the evidence by way of commissioner report. He further submits that having obtained an ad-interim injunction even after the filing of the counter and after insisting on a hearing, the petitioner is now avoiding the hearing of the said application. Only with a view to drag on the proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition, contrary to her own admission before the Court that she was in possession of the subject property. Therefore finding of the trial court that the present application is filed only to drag the matter is rightly held and the order of the trial court does not warrants any interference. 7. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, admittedly, the suit itself is filed for bare injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. It is settled law that once a Suit is filed for bare injunction, claiming as absolute owner and possessor of the subject property, the petitioner cannot 6 sought for assistance of advocate commissioner for identification of the property which itself indicates the validity of statement of her possession over the subject property. It is settled principle that the party who has evidence claiming absolute ownership cannot sought for collection of evidence through advocate commissioner. In a suit for bare injunction, appointment of advocate commissioner for physical identification of property cannot be allowed as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Chandrasekaran and Ors. Vs. V.Doss Naidu1, wherein, Paragraph Nos. 11, 17, 18, 21 and 22 of the said order are extracted hereunder: “11. Whether the defendants are entitled to seek for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to report about the physical features and age of the house and the trees thereon is the main point that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition. 17. The Commissioner is sought for to note down the existence of the house, age of the house, Guava trees and Coconut trees and their age. Though the appointment of Advocate Commissioner is sought for under the pretext of noting down the physical features, indirectly it only seeks to find out the factum of possession. The material issue in the suit is relating to the nature of possession and lawful right of the defendants (if any). That material issue of determining the possession cannot be left to the Advocate Commissioner. The Appointment of Advocate Commissioner for making enquiry about be adjudicated upon framing issues and recording the evidence. 18. Advocate Commissioner could be appointed only when the Court is satisfied that on the materials available on record, the party is not able to produce the desired evidence, the Court may 1 C.R.P.(PD) No.1968 of 2002, dt. 29.06.2005 7 assist the party to appoint the Advocate Commissioner to obtain the evidence. If really, the defendants are in possession of the Suit Property, the possession could not be proved by producing House Tax Receipts, Adangal and such other desired oral evidence. When the concurrent findings in the earlier litigation in O.S.No.6 of 1972 and A.S.No.164 of 1977 are against the Defendants, it would not be appropriate to Appoint the Advocate Commissioner to note down the existence of the house trees, so as to bring out the possession of the Defendants. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in the light of earlier judgment in O.S.No.6 of 1972 and A.S.No.164 of 1977, there cannot be mechanical and indiscriminate appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The contention that the defendants would pay the remuneration and that the plaintiff may not prejudiced by appointment of advocate commissioner has no force. 21. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised by the Court in its discretion and cannot be claimed as of right by any party. Under Article227 of the Constriction of India, the well settled position is:- i) The High Court’s power of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty flagrant violation of law, and would be exercised most sparingly, in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. It cannot be used as appellate or revisional power. ii) The power would not be exercised to correct and error of fact or of law, not being an “error of law apparent on the face of the record”, of an “irregularity or illegality of procedure” unless such error affects the jurisdiction, or involves breach of the principles of natural justice; or to reappraise the evidence. iii) Nor will the High Court, in exercise of this power, substitute its own judgment for that of the inferior Court, 8 whether on a question of fact, or of law or interfere with the intra vires exercise of a discretionary power, unless it is “arbitrary or capricious” or unless there was no evidence at all on which the finding on a “jurisdictional fact”. Where the high court found fault with appellate court in declining to take into consideration certain documents and took them on record, instead of substituting its opinion on the merits of the case, it should have remanded the matter back for the opinion of the appellate court, it being the final court of fact. iv) Nor can the High Court, not being a appellate court, pass an order of remand. In short, as regards findings of fact of the inferior Courts, the jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to only examining whether the subordinate court kept itself within the bounds of its authority in reaching the findings of fact. Consequently, the High Court cannot quash the judgment of Subordinate Court merely in the ground that its findings of fact were erroneous, but could do so only if the subordinate court came to its conclusion without any evidence or upon a misreading of the evidence, or if its conclusions were perverse. There is nothing to suggest that the impugned order is perverse or in violation of law warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 22. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, learned district Munsif has rightly declined to appoint Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and there by elucidating the factum of possession,. The impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity. This revision petition has no remits and is bound to fail.” 9 In addition, Chinnathambi and Ors. Vs. Anjalai,2 the Hon’ble High Court of Madras held as follows: “We shall now consider some of the decisions rendered by various Courts in this regard. (i) In a decision reported in Puttappa vs. Ramappa (AIR 1996 Karnataka 257), in paragraph 3, the Court held as follows : "3. …. a Commissioner cannot be appointed to find out as to who is in possession of the property. Under Order 26, C.P.C., a Commissioner can be appointed to make local investigation to investigate the facts or other materials which are found in the property and to make a report in regard to that matter to the Court. In a suit for injunction the question as to who is in possession of the property, is a matter to be decided by the Court on the basis of the evidence, either oral or documentary, to be adduced by the parties. That function cannot be delegated to a Commissioner who cannot find out as to who is in possession of the property. Accordingly, the Lower Court was right in rejecting the application…” (ii) In a decision reported in Union of India and another vs. M/s.Kripal Industries (AIR 1998 Rajasthan 224), the Court in paragraph 18 has held as follows : “18. …power of appointment of Commissioner for local investigation cannot be exercised by the Court to assist party to collect evidence where it can get evidence itself. In the case on hand the written statement has already been filed, therefore, the disputed question of fact can be adjudicated upon by the Court after framing the issues 2 CPR (PD) No.1721 of 2005 & CMP No.19371 of 2005, dt.22.09.2026 10 and recording the evidence of the parties. For such purpose assistance of Commissioner is neither necessary nor justified…” (iii) In a decision reported in Penta Urmila and others vs. Karukola Kumarasamy (2005 (2) ALD 130), the Court in paragraph 6 has held as follows: “….6. In a suit for permanent injunction, the vital and important issue is whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule land and whether there was attempt by the defendant/s to interfere with such possession of plaintiffs. The burden is entirely on the plaintiffs to bring convincing and cogent evidence on record and for so doing, it is not permissible for them to invoke Order XXVI Rule 9, which is intended for difference purpose. Further, if at this stage, Advocate Commissioner files a report, as directed by Appellate Court with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor it would certainly amount to introducing additional evidence which is ordinarily not permissible unless proper application is made under Order XLI Rule 27 satisfying the conditions therein….” In a matter relating to investigation in to the disputed question of fact of possession, the power of appointment of Commissioner for local investigation cannot be exercised by the Court to assist the party to collect evidence, where the party can collect evidence by himself. Thus in a case, where the claim of the plaintiff that, she is in possession of the disputed property is denied by the defendants by filing written statement, the disputed question of fact can be adjudicated upon by the Court, after framing of issues and recording evidence of the parties. 8. In the instant case, the suit is for permanent injunction and admittedly, interim injunction has been granted on 19.11.2003 and 11 nearly after 1 year and 7 months, the petitioners have taken out an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Even as per the averments made in the petition, the respondent/plaintiff has stated that the petitioners/defendants are making arrangements to obliterate her cart-track or land and also proposed to encroach a further extent of 0.09 cents. Whereas, there is no averment in the plaint that there is an encroachment of land. It is a well accepted principle of law that an Advocate Commissioner should not be appointed to find out the possession of the property, which has to be adjudicated only by oral and documentary evidence. Under such circumstances, the order of the Lower Court suffers from material irregularity and it is not in accordance with the principles laid down in the above decisions. In the result, the order of the Lower Court is set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed.” 8. In view of the reasons stated above and in light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras as referred above, the order passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference, as there is no material defect, bias, or perversity, and the same is in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date:10.03.2026 BSP 12 262 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Civil Revision Petition NO.117 OF 2026 DATED:10.03.2026 Date:10.03.2026 BSP