THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3410 OF 2014 DATED 27th DECEMBER, 2014 Between:
Chintalapani Purushotham Reddy and another.
… Petitioners and Ankam Satya Prakash and others.
… Respondents THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3410 OF 2014 O R D E R The plaintiffs in O.S.No.93 of 2012 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, filed I.A.No.91 of 2013 therein under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to measure the land in Sy.Nos.168, 164 and 324 of Lashkar Singaram Revenue Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, with the help of the Assistant Director of Lands, Survey and Settlement, Warangal, to ascertain whether the suit schedule property was located in Sy.Nos.168 or 164, 324 of the village. By order dated 07.07.2014, the trial Court allowed the I.A. and appointed an Advocate-Commissioner as prayed for. Aggrieved, the defendants in the suit are before this Court by way of this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The suit, O.S.No.93 of 2012, was filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land was situated in Sy.No.168 of Lashkar Singaram Village while the defendants contended that their lands were situated in Sy.Nos.164 and 324 of the village. Both parties claimed their respective properties under registered sale deeds.
Though Sri B.Venkat Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants, would contend that the plaintiffs are trying to gather evidence through the Advocate-Commissioner, which is ordinarily impermissible in law, this Court is not impressed. It is significant to note that the defendants themselves filed an application in I.A.No.75 of 2013 in O.S.No.93 of 2012 under Order 26 Rule 9, Order 39 Rule 7 and Section 151 CPC for appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner to note down the physical features, obtain measurements and photographs of the suit schedule property as per the work memos of both the parties.
By an order passed on the very same day, i.e. 07.07.2014, the trial Court allowed this I.A. also. The operative portion of this order reads to the effect that the Advocate-Commissioner was to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property as shown by both parties and as per their work memos and to take photographs and file a report.
Thus, the defendants also sought appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit land. ‘Physical features’ would not entail mere detailing of the obtaining ground position of the suit land but also its description in terms of being localized in a particular survey number. This aspect of the matter was merely spelt out elaborately in the order passed in I.A.No.91 of 2013 filed by the plaintiffs in the suit. In effect, the import of both the orders was one and the same.
This Court therefore finds no irregularity or illegality in the order under revision. No interference is warranted therewith.
The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.
-------------------------------------
SANJAY KUMAR, J 27th DECEMBER, 2014
PGS