Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/347/2026 of Y. VENKATESWARA RAO Vs BODEPUDI VIJAYALAKSHMI on 5 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION Between: 1. Y. VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O DR. NO. 54 KRISTURAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA. 1. BODEPUDI VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/o Rama Mohan Rao about
APHC010050322026
IN TH
FRIDAY
TWO
THE HONOURABLE SR
CIVIL R
Between:
1. Y. VENKATESWAR
YEARS, R/O DR
KRISTURAJPURAM
1. BODEPUDI VIJAYA
about years,
Hanumantharaya Na
Petition under Articl
circumstances stated in
pleased topleased to set
2020 in O.S. No. 436 of
AddI Civil Judge (Junior
Vijayawada and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Secti
in the affidavit filed in su
pleased to stay all fu
26.12.2025in I A. No. 16
Hon'ble Rent Controller-
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Y, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND
REVISION PETITION NO: 347/2026
RA RAO, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGE
R. NO. 54-19-20A, MAIN ROAD
M, VIJAYAWADA.
AND
ALAKSHMI, W/o Rama Mohan Rao,
R/o
Dr.
No.
33-13-8,
Kadiy
agar, Seetharampuram, Vijayawada.
...R
le 227 of the Constitution of India, pra the grounds filed herein, the High t aside the order dated 26.12.2025 in 2020 on the file of Hon'ble Rent Co Division)-IV AddI. Judicial Magistrate on 151 CPC praying that in the circum pport of the petition, the High Court m urther proceedings pursuant to th 61 of 2020 in O.S. No. 436 of 202
-Cum-IV AddI Civil Judge (Junior D
DESH
DRANATH ROY
ED ABOUT 62
, 2ND LINE,
...PETITIONER
Female, Aged
yalavariVeedhi,
RESPONDENT
aying that in the
Court may be
n I.A. No. 161 of
ontroller-Cum-IV
e of First Class,
mstances stated
may be pleased
he order dated
20 on the file of
Division)-IV AddI
CMR,J
C.R.P.No.347 of 2026
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada pending disposal of the subject Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.SINGAMSETTY V.M. SANKAR
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
CMR,J
C.R.P.No.347 of 2026
The Court made the following:
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.
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.161 of 2023 in O.S.No.436 of 2020 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, whereby the petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff for appointing an advocate commissioner, to take measurements of the plaint schedule property with the help of town surveyor and to submit his report was allowed, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the defendant.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The petitioner is the defendant in the above suit. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for declaration of her title in respect of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that both the plaintiff and the defendant have purchased two vacant sites adjacent to each other and thereafter, the defendant has constructed a house on the site purchased by him and in the process of construction of the house that he has encroached on to some portion of the vacant site of the plaintiff. Therefore, to find out the extent of the land encroached by the defendant over the site of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure to appoint an advocate commissioner to take measurements of the plaint schedule property, as per the documents of both the plaintiff and the defendant, with the help of a town surveyor and to file his report. The said petition was allowed by the impugned order. It is the said order that is now questioned in this revision by the defendant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant vehemently contend before the Court that an advocate commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of collection of evidence and on the said ground, he sought to assail
CMR,J C.R.P.No.347 of 2026
the legal validity of the impugned order of the trial Court. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of K.Rafiq Basha v. Valukuru Ramakrishna and others 1 and also on the judgment rendered in the case of Vasupalli Danayya v. Pinnmaraju Srinivas and others 2 . In Rafiq Basha, this Court found fault with the order of appointing an advocate commissioner on the ground that the suit was filed for declaration of title of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property and for injunction and in such suit, the question of localization of the suit property and noting down physical features of the property does not arise. In Vasupalli Danayya, the Court found fault with the order of appointment of an advocate commissioner on the ground that when the suit is for perpetual injunction, the burden of proof to establish lawful possession over the suit schedule property is on the plaintiff and when the identity and location of the suit schedule property is not in controversy, there is no need to appoint an advocate commissioner. Facts of the case in both the aforesaid reported judgments are totally distinguishable. The present case on hand stands on a different footing. Here is a case, as already discussed, where it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant, while constructing his house on his vacant site, has encroached on to the vacant site of the plaintiff to some extent. Therefore, she sought for declaration of the title in respect of the said property and sought for injunction. Therefore, whether there is an encroachment made on to the vacant site of the plaintiff by the defendant, while constructing his house, or not, is the material question to be decided in the suit. For that purpose, unless an advocate commissioner is appointed to take measurements of the properties of both the plaintiff and the defendant with the help of qualified surveyor, whether the defendant has encroached on to the site of the plaintiff or not cannot be decided. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the factual aspects involved in the suit, the trial Court rightly appointed an advocate commissioner for the aforesaid purpose.
1 2024 (5) ALT 514 2 2023 (6) ALT 437
CMR,J C.R.P.No.347 of 2026
This Court finds no illegality or legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order, warranting its interference with the said order. The impugned order is perfectly sustainable under law in the given facts and circumstances of the case. When there is no patent illegality or manifest error of law on the face of the impugned order, this Court cannot, in exercise of its power of revision, interfere with the impugned order.
5. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, affirming the order of the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date: 06.02.2026 MDP