Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 29.06.2026 Date of uploading :07.07.2026 APHC010347642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1656/2025 Between: 1. C VENKATARATHNAMMA, (DIED) 2. C. MUNIPARTHA SARATHI,, S/O LATE C. MURUGES CHETTY, R/O D.NO.20-3-130, BYE-PASS ROAD, OPP. MUNICIPAL PARK, SIVAJYOTHI NAGAR, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3. C. SANKARAIAH,, S/O LATE C. MURUGES CHETTY, R/O D.NO.20-3- 130, BYE-PASS ROAD, OPP. MUNICIPAL PARK, SIVAJYOTHI NAGAR, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4. C. VARALAKSHMI,, W/O CHANDRASEKHAR, R/O D.NO.6-8-1245, NGO'S COLONY, K.T. ROAD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPAT DISTRICT. 5. C. NAGINI,, W/O LATE C. KARUNANIDHI, R/O D.NO.21-10-384/D, KRANTHI NAGAR, JEEVAKONA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. C SRINIVASA MURTHY, S/O LATE C. MURUGES CHETTY, R/AT D.NO.21-10-432, KRANTHI NAGAR, RTC COLONY, JEEVAKONA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 2. C M LOKESH, , S/O C. SRINIVASA MURTHY, R/AT D.NO.21-10-432, KRANTHI NAGAR, RTC COLONY. JEEVAKONA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3. C PUSHPALATHA, W/O V. PRAKASH, R/O D.NO.7-1-70F, K.T. ROAD, ANNA RAO CIRCLE, BESIDE JANATHA MEDICALS, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI 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 Petitioner beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the Order dt.09.04.2025 made in I.A.No.52 of 2024 in O.S.No.296 of 2018 on the file of the X Additional District Judge Tirupati 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 please to Stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.296 of 2018 on the file of X Additional District Judge, Tirupati pending disposal of the main C.R.P. 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 May be please to extend the interim stay order dated 25.07.2025 passed in C.R.P. No.1656 of 2025, pending disposal of the main C.R.P., and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KORAMUTLA SALINI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SAI AKASH N The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Sharma, learned counsel representing Ms. Koramutla Salini, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and Sri N.Sai Akash, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. 2. The defendants 2 to 5 in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 09.04.2025 in I.A.No.52 of 2024 in O.S.No.296 of 2018 on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein, being the plaintiffs, filed O.S.No.296 of 2018 to declare that the 1st plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property; directing the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the 1st item and for the grant of perpetual injunction, costs, etc.,. Pending the suit, the 1st defendant died, and the 6th defendant was brought on record as the legal representative. The 6th defendant was set ex parte in the suit on 04.11.2022. 4. The defendants 2 to 5 filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w 151 C.P.C. to appoint a Court Commissioner to identify the location of the suit schedule property with the help of the Mandal Surveyor of Tirupati, note down the physical features, and to take photographs of the same etc., The 1st plaintiff filed a counter opposing the application. 5. By an order dated 09.04.2025, the trial Court dismissed the application. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that the interlocutory application was filed to note down the physical features of the property in view of the conflicting boundaries. The trial court, without assigning any reasons, dismissed the application. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 supported the order passed by the trial Court. 8. The point for consideration is: Whether the order dated 09.04.2025 in I.A.No.52 of 2024 in O.S.No.296 of 2018 on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, suffers from any illegality or irregularity? 9. The suit O.S.No.296 of 2018 was filed by the plaintiffs for the relief stated supra. The suit schedule property consists of a house bearing D.No.20- 3-130, comprising two items, namely, 1st item: ground floor – which is divided into three portions, more fully detailed in the sketch as ABCD, CDEF & GHIJ. The 2nd item: first floor, the entire first floor is one portion, on the terrace of the first floor, a temporary zinc sheet roofed shed. Initially, the mother of the defendant filed I.A.No.589 of 2019 seeking appointment of the Commissioner to identify the location of the suit schedule property etc., However, upon her demise, the said interlocutory application was dismissed for non-prosecution on 10.10.2023. 10. It is a settled proposition of law that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect or fish out the evidence. In the case at hand, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration. In a suit for a declaration, the plaintiffs have to plead and prove their case. Curiously, the defendants 2 to 5 filed the interlocutory application seeking the appointment of an advocate commissioner to identify the location and to note down physical features. 11. Of course, no elaborate reasons were assigned by the trial Court while dismissing the application. However, the suit was filed in respect of a house consisting of the ground floor and the first floor. Seeking an appointment of the Commissioner to identify the location and to note down the physical features, in the considered opinion of this Court, is nothing but a collection of evidence. Such a course is impermissible. 12. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court doesn’t find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 09.04.2025 in I.A.No.52 of 2024 in O.S.No.296 of 2018 on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Tirupati. Hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 29.06.2026 SNI Whether the order is: Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 67 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1656 of 2025 Dated: 29.06.2026 SNI