Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/3404/2025 of P. Doraswamy, Vs K. Sudhakar, on 6 May 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3404 OF 2025 Between: 1. P. DORASWAMY, S/O. P. KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 53
APHC010644022025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3404 OF 2025
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. P. DORASWAMY, S/O. P. KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. UPPARAPALLI VILLAGE, PAKALA POST AND MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
2. P. VIMALA, W/O. P.DORASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. UPPARAPALLI VILLAGE, PAKALA POST AND MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S) AND
1. K SUDHAKAR, S/O. LATE KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
2. T USHARANI, W/O. T. GANGAIAH (BATHAIAH), AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
3. T SUNEEL KUMAR, S/O. T. GANGAIAH (BATHAIAH), AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
4. T PRIYA, D/O. T.GANGAIAH (BATHAIAH), ALL ARE RESIDING AT D. NO. 18-115, UPPARAPALLI VILLAGE, PAKALA POST AND MANDAL TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. Mr.M.Veerendranath, appeared on behalf of Mr.C. Subodh Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Mr.P.Rishyendra Sai, appeared on behalf of Mrs.Nimmagada Revathi.
The Court made the following ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2025, passed in I.A.Nos.478 & 445 of 2025 in O.S.No.190 of 2023, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pakala.
The defendants in the said suit filed I.A.No.478 of 2025 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the Plaint “A” and “B” schedule properties as well as their house property on its back side and for other reliefs. In the said I.A., the petitioners herein / plaintiffs filed counter inter alia to the effect that they have no objection for appointment of Court Commissioner with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor, Pakala. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order appointed Advocate Commissioner to note down the existing physical features etc., and file his report along with rough sketch with photographs and C.D.
Learned counsel for petitioners / plaintiffs sought to advance arguments with reference to various grounds raised in Memorandum of Revision Petition. He submits that while the petitioners have no objection for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, however, the only objection is with regard to execution of the warrant without the assistance of Mandal Surveyor.
At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents states that it is agreeable for the respondents / defendants for conduct of the survey by the Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor.
In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of modifying the order dated 20.11.2025 to the extent that the Advocate Commissioner, appointed by the learned Trial Court, shall take assistance of Mandal Surveyor, Pakala town, at the time of execution of warrant, after due notice to the parties herein and submit his report. No costs.
Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
NINALA JAYASURYA,J Date:07.05.2026. Ssv
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3404 OF 2025 Date:07.05.2026. Ssv