CRP/1290/2023 of Devarapalli Sujatha, Vs Koppisetty Krishna, Died as per LRs RR2,3 on 27 April 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 06.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.402 of 2022 in I.A.No.520 of 2014 in O.S.No.186 of 2014 by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent no.1 is the sole defendant and respondent nos.2 and 3 are Legal Representatives of the deceased sole defendant brought on record consequent to death of sole defendant pending this Civil Revision Petition.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title with consequential recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed vide I.A.No.520 of 2014 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and an Advocate commissioner was appointed and he executed the warrant and filed report. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the instant petition vide I.A.No.402 of 2022 under Order-XXVI, Rule-9 CPC to reentrust the warrant to the Commissioner with a direction to furnish the measurements of the encroached area by the respondent in petitioner’s plot and to measure the property of respondent. The respondent resisted the petition by filing counter contending that warrant cannot be reentrusted without examining the Advocate Commissioner in Court and that evidence of both the parties has to be let in RC,J

first and if the circumstances warrant, then only reentrustment would arise and that the petition is filed for collection of evidence and it has to be dismissed. The learned trial Judge upon hearing the counsel, dismissed the petition. The said dismissal order has been challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ragala Umamaheswara Rao, learned counsel for respondents.

5. Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition and the contents of the Civil Revision Petition would contend that since the report of the commissioner is contrary to the warrant issued to him and though it was mentioned in the report that the respondent had encroached upon the petitioner’s site, the extent of encroachment is not mentioned. He would further contend that the commissioner has to find the extent of encroachment with the aid of the document of the respondent and also by taking into consideration the widening of the road from 60 feet to 80 feet, else the real extent of encroachment will not come to light and moreover the commissioner had conducted survey based on the document of the petitioner only without considering the document of the respondent and hence re-entrustment of warrant to another commissioner is very much essential for effective RC,J

adjudication of the matter, however, the learned trial Judge without considering the facts and circumstnaces of the case erroneously dismissed the petition and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. On the other hand, Sri Ragala Uma Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for respondents while reiterating the contents of the counter would contend that unless the first commissioner is examined in Court, the second commissioner cannot be appointed. He would further contend that the parties have to let in their evidence and if the circumstances warrant the issue as to appointment of commissioner has to be gone into and moreover, commissioner cannot be appointed for gathering evidence. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge had rightly dismissed the petition and the same does not require any interference of this Court and as there are no grounds for reentrustment of warrant the Civil Revision Petition is to be dismissed.

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The record discloses that the commissioner has filed report and it is only after lapse of five (05) years the petitioner filed objections along with a petition and the same is pending consideration.

RC,J

9. Re-entrustment of warrant either to the first commissioner or to any other commissioner would arise only if the Court finds that the first report is vague, incomplete or fails to address the essential points of the dispute, that the commissioner did not follow the proper procedure and that there is a need for further investigation/ measurement that the first commissioner missed. For coming to such conclusions, the Court should necessarily evaluate the report of the commissioner in light of the objections filed by the parties. As per the impugned order the said process is underway and therefore, the learned trial judge is right in dismissing the petition holding that unless it is ascertained as to whether the commissioner acted according to the directions of the warrant, reentrustment of warrant cannot be done. The said order does not suffer from any legal infirmity and does not require interference of this Court. This Civil Revision Petition being meritless deserves dismissal.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 28TH APRIL, 2026

RR