Date of reserved for orders : 30.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 12.08.2026 Date of uploading : .08.2026 APHC010337422026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1834/2026 Between: 1. TUPILI GIRIJAMMA, W/O. LATE BHASKAR REDDY R/O. 1/103, PEDURU VILLAGE,THOTAPALLI GUDUR MANDAL,NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. TUPILI UDAYA KUMAR REDDY, S/O. LATE BHASKAR REDDY,R/O. 1/103, PEDURU VILLAGE,THOTAPALLI GUDUR MANDAL,NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. TUPILI SUBBA REDDY, S/O.LATE LATCHA REDDY,AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,R/O.1/104, PEDURU VILLAGE,THOTAPALLI GUDUR MANDAL,NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. GUDURU SITA RAMAMMA DIED, GUDURU SITA RAMAMMA DIED 3. DEVALLA PRASAD REDDY DIED, DEVALLA PRASAD REDDY DIED 4. PAMURU PADMAJA, W/O. LATE PRATHA SARADHI REDDY R/O.H.NO.26-2-1558, GANDHINAGAR ROAD,VEDAYAPALEM, NELLORE-4. Page 2 of 8 5. GUDURU AUDI SESHA REDDY, S/O.LATCHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,C/O.VIJAYA CARE HOSPITAL, NEAR VIJAYA MAHAL GATE,SRINIVASA AGRAHARAM, NELLORE. 6. GUDURU SRINIVASULU REDDY, S/O. AUDISESHA REDDY,AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,R/O.D.NO.26-14-78,NEXT TO YLNN KALYANA MANDAPAMBV NAGAR, NELLORE 7. DR GUDURU LAKSHMI ANNAPOORNA, D/O.AUDI SESHA REDDY,AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. MEDICAL PRACTITIONER,C/O.VIJAYA CARE HOSPITAL, NEARVIJAYA MAHAL GATE,SRINIVASA AGRAHARAM, NELLORE. 8. DEVALLA SUREKHA, W/O. LATE PRASAD REDDY,AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,R/O.D.NO.27-1-1320, 3 CROSS STREET,BALAJI NAGAR, NELLORE CITY. 9. DEVALLA LAKSHMI NIRUPA, D/O.LATE LATE PRASAD REDDY,AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,R/O.D.NO.27-1-1320, 3 CROSS STREET,BALAJI NAGAR, NELLORE CITY 10. TUPILI VINOD KUMAR REDDY, S/O. LATE BHASKAR REDDY,EMPLOYEE IN MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT CENTRE, UNIT 2, LEVEL-2,EXPLORER BUILDING, INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PARK, WHITE FIELD ROAD,BANGALORE. ...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 by the orders dt.06.03.2026 passed in I.A.No.508/2025 IN I.A.NO.364/200 8 IN O.S.NO.224/2005 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge Senior Division 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 to direct registration of a crime against the seventh respondent under the provisions of the SC& ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and the various provisions of the BNSS and BSS, as otherwise petitioner will be put to severe injustice and may pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY The Court made the following order: Defendants 1 and 2, in the suit and respondents 1 and 2 in I.A.No.508 of 2025 filed the above Civil Revision Petition (hereinafter referred to as „the revision‟), assailing the order, dated 06.03.2026 in I.A.No.508 of 2025 in I.A.No.364 of 2008 in O.S.No.224 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nellore. 2. Respondent No.1 herein, being the plaintiff, filed O.S.No.224 of 2005 against the revision petitioners seeking partition of the suit schedule properties. In the plaint, it was contended that the plaintiff and husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants 2 and 3, are sons of one Latcha Reddy and Vanajakshamma. It was pleaded that during the lifetime of Latcha Reddy, a partition was effected in respect of the joint family property under registered partition deeds, dated 24.05.1961. „A‟ and „B‟ schedule properties were kept undivided. The plaintiff pleaded that he is entitled to Ac.6-75 cents in „A‟ schedule property and 5/12th share in „B‟ schedule property. The other pleadings are not necessary to decide this revision, in view of the preliminary decree passed by the trial court. 3. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement denying the plaint averments and the same was adopted by defendants 1 and 3. 4. A preliminary decree was passed on 17.03.2008, directing partition and separate possession of the plaintiff‟s share of Ac.6-75 cents out of the plaint „A‟ schedule property and 5/12th share of „B‟ schedule property. Against the said decree, defendants 1 to 3 preferred A.S.No.667 of 2008 and the same was disposed of on 28.12.2003. Page 4 of 8 5. In the meantime, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.364 of 2008, to pass a final decree, by appointing Advocate Commissioner, pursuant to the preliminary decree, dated 17.03.2008. One Sri D. Venkata Ramaiah was appointed as Advocate Commissioner, and he issued a notice indicating that the warrant would be executed on 06.01.2011 at 10:00 a.m. with the help of the Mandal Surveyor. The Advocate Commissioner filed a report, dated 06.04.2011, and the defendants filed objections; however, they did not press the same till dismissal of A.S.No.667 of 2008. Pursuant to the dismissal of the appeal suit, respondents 1 to 3/defendants 1 to 3 filed I.A.No.508 of 2025 under Section 151 C.P.C. to re-entrust the warrant to the Advocate Commissioner and to direct him to fix up the boundaries on par with „A‟ schedule property, by considering the objections of the revision petitioners. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that the Advocate Commissioner issued notice regarding execution of warrant on 06.01.2011. On the same day, at 11:15 am, the deponent gave a memo of notice, stating that there is no land of Ac.17-00 cents belonging to their family and crop is in existence and it is not practicable to measure the land to demarcate „G‟ to fix the boundaries. The land, which was allotted to the plaintiff, is distinct with different survey numbers. The Advocate Commissioner as well as the Mandal Surveyor have to measure the land by metes and bounds with reference to each survey number and its extent and to draw a sketch as per its topographical features, and requested the Advocate Commissioner to postpone the enquiry till the crop is harvested. However, the Advocate Commissioner executed the warrant in their absence and the objections were filed. Pursuant to disposal of the second appeal, interlocutory applications were restored to file. Eventually, prayed to re-entrust the warrant. 7. The respondent/plaintiff filed a counter and opposed the application. It was contended inter alia, that pursuant to the preliminary decree, dated 17.03.2008, I.A.No.364 of 2008 was filed. The Advocate Commissioner submitted a report on 01.04.2011, and the revision petitioners filed objections on 19.07.2011. The revision petitioners filed I.A.No.508 of 2025 after dismissal of A.S.No.667 of 2008 only to protract the litigation. As per the Commissioner‟s report, notices were issued to the learned counsel for respondents on 16.07.2009, 22.07.2009, 30.09.2009, 10.10.2009, 30.10.2009, 14.12.2009, 24.12.2009, 20.10.2010, 26.11.2010, 13.11.2010 and 02.11.2011. As per the Commissioner‟s report, the Commissioner inspected „A‟ schedule property in the presence of the revision petitioners and their counsels. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the application. 8. Heard Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, for respondent No.1. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that despite the memo, dated 06.01.2011 served by the revision petitioners, requesting to postpone the execution of the warrant, the learned Advocate Commissioner executed the warrant in their absence. There is a variation of extent as per the report of the Advocate Commissioner to that of „A‟ schedule property. The trial court, without considering the objections, dismissed the application. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 herein submitted that the application was filed only to protract the litigation. Respondent No.1 is 80 years old. The trial Court considered all the aspects and prayed to dismiss the application. 11. The points for consideration are : 1. Whether the request of the petitioners for re-entrustment of the warrant is permissible? 2. Whether the order, dated 06.03.2026 in I.A.No.508 of 2025 in I.A.No.364 of 2008 in O.S.No.224 of 2005 suffers from any illegality or perversity, warranting interference of this Court? 12. The facts referred to supra require no reiteration. Page 6 of 8 13. The report of the Advocate Commissioner in respect of „A‟ schedule property would indicate that while conducting survey, the Mandal Surveyor used a modern instrument i.e. „Total Station‟, which is an electronic/optical instrument, for measuring the land. „Total Station‟ is a theodolite (transit) integrated with an electronic distance measurement device (EDM) to read distances from the instrument to a particular point. It is not in dispute that revision petitioner No.2/defendant No.2 approached the Advocate Commissioner along with a memo to postpone the survey as crop would be damaged. However, the Advocate Commissioner used the latest electronic instrument, in which no crop was damaged. By that time, in fact, half of the survey was completed by the Mandal Surveyor along with his assistant. 14. The survey report indicates that as per the preliminary decree the extent of „A‟ schedule property is Ac.17-00. However, as per the survey, some of the survey numbers and extents are not within the limits of the plaint „A‟ schedule property, and they do not belong to the plaintiff and defendants. Those extents were specifically mentioned in the report. 15. However, an extent of Ac.5-04 cents with different survey numbers, within the boundaries of the plaint „A‟ schedule property, is made part of the report, making the total extent of plaint „A‟ schedule property as Ac.18-49 cents plus joint passage of Ac.00-23 cents. All the particulars are mentioned in the survey report. Along with the survey report, warrant, different memos including the memo issued by the Advocate for the defendants; combined sketch, division of lands between the plaintiff and the defendants and photos with „CD‟ were filed. 16. No doubt, defendants 1 to 3 filed objections. Having filed objections, defendants did not press the said objections till the disposal of the first appeal on 28.12.2023. After dismissal of the appeal, when the trial court had taken up the final decree, the application was filed for re-entrustment of the warrant. In fact, the trial court observed that the Advocate Commissioner had taken proper care and necessary steps for measuring the land and dividing the same. The Advocate Commissioner filed a detailed report. 17. In the opinion of this Court, as observed by the trial court, the application filed for re-entrustment of the warrant is only to protract the proceedings and to cause hindrance to pass final decree. The trial court also observed that the defendants can advance arguments in the light of the objections with supporting technical reasons. Thus, the trial court has not foreclosed the revision petitioners from advancing arguments vis-à-vis objections raised by them. The trial court only dismissed the application filed for re-entrustment of warrant. 18. It is an established principle of law that boundaries prevail over extension of survey number. Therefore, if any excess extent of land is found within the boundaries of the plaint „A‟ schedule property, such extent shall prevail over the extent mentioned in the survey number. Of course, the trial court, while passing the final decree, shall consider the said aspect also. 19. Given the observations of the trial court that the revision petitioners are at liberty to argue on the objections with supporting technical reasons, in the considered opinion of this court, the trial court exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. 20. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. and Another Vs. B. Gurappa Naidu and Others1, the Hon‟ble Apex Court, by referring to the decisions reported in Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil2; Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.3, and Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel4 and considered the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and summarised the principles as follows: 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 745 2 (2010) 8 SCC 329 3 (2001) 8 SCC 97 4 (2022) 4 SCC 181 “35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters, is as follows: a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals. b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.” 21. Given the discussion supra, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. The order under revision brooks no interference. There are no merits in the revision. 22. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 12.08.2026 IKN Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No