CRP/1398/2026 of B. Nageswara Reddy, Vs B. Bheemeswara Reddy, on 30 July 2026

ORDER :-

Questioning the order, dated 06.04.2026 passed in I.A. No.320 of 2025 in O.S. No.1170 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurnool, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.1170 of 2021. They filed the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, they filed I.A. No.320 of 2025 under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the petition schedule locality, to note down the existing physical features, to take measurements of the two car parking area, and to file commissioner report. By the time the said application was filed, the trial had already concluded and the suit was posted for arguments. At that stage, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present Interlocutory Application.

3. After hearing both sides, the learned IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurnool, by the order impugned herein, dismissed I.A. No.320 of 2025. The reasons assigned by the learned IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) for dismissing the said application are as follows :- “18. Further the petitioners seeking appointment of advocate commissioner for measurement of car parking’s, but the petitioners never specifically mentioned the measurements and boundaries of the car parking and the same details has to be furnished by the petitioners. Further

KSR,J C.R.P. No.1398 OF 2026

the material on record is sufficient to decide the suit on merits as already the suit is at fag end. Moreover mere measuring the physical features and noting measurements of car parking is not at all relevant for decide the present suit, and it is necessary to prove that petitioners acquired the car parking from their vendors through sale deeds or not. The decision of a material issue cannot be left to the commissioner, as such issues decided by the Court. The report of the Commissioner on such issue is not binding on the Court, as the Court is free to arrive at its own conclusion. The dicta laid in AIR 1970 Mys 314 Rangayyakanantha Vs. Govinda Chatra and others.

19. All these circumstances create doubts whether the petitioners came with clean hands to court for the petition relief. The above stated decisions also clearly emphasis that advocate commissioner shall not appoint for the purpose of collection of evidence. Hence this Court finds no merits at this stage in this petition. Hence this point is answered against the petitioners and in favour of respondent.”

4. As seen from the above findings recorded by the learned trial Judge, the plaintiff came up with this application after the trial had concluded and when the suit was coming up for arguments. Further, the plaintiff cannot seek appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of collecting evidence. As such, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Judge warranting interference by this Court.

5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be disposed of, at the admission stage. As the suit is coming up for arguments, the learned IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurnool, is directed to dispose of the suit after

KSR,J C.R.P. No.1398 OF 2026

hearing both sides, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.

____ K.SURESH REDDY, J

Dt. 31.07.2026 Note : C.C. by 03.08.2026 B/o SAB.

KSR,J

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1398 of 2026

Dt. 31.07.2026

Note : C.C. by 03.08.2026 B/o SAB.