Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/3011/2025 of Vusa Lakshnni Kanthamma Vs Katari Rama Vijaya Lakshmi on 22 January 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION Between: 1. VUSA LAKSHNNI KANTHAMMA, W/O. NANCHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.15/207/2A MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT 1.
APHC010575652025
IN TH
FRIDAY, TH
TWO
THE HONOURABLE SR
CIVIL R
Between:
1. VUSA LAKSHNNI
ABOUT 51 YEA
MACHILIPATNAM,
1. KATARI RAMA VIJ
about 65 years. H
Machilipatnam, Kris
Petition under Articl
circumstances stated in
pleased to set aside th
A.S.No.18 of 2024 on
Machilipatnam conseque
pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Secti
in the affidavit filed in sup
grant stay of all further p
of the Principal District J
main Revision Petition an
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
HE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUAR
O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND
REVISION PETITION NO: 3011/2025
KANTHAMMA, W/O. NANCHARA
RS, R/O. D.NO.15/207/2A-40, M
KRISHNA DISTRICT
AND
JAYA LAKSHMI, W/o. Rama Krishna
House wife, R/o. D.NO.15/207-41-A,
hna District
...R
le 227 of the Constitution of India, pra the grounds filed herein, the High he order dated 06-10-2025 in I.A.
the file of the Principal District Jud
ently allow the I.A.No.287/2024 in A.S.
on 151 CPC praying that in the circum
pport of the petition, the High Court ma roceedings in A.S.No.18/2024 on the Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam pen nd pass DESH
RY
DRANATH ROY
AIAH, AGED
MACHAVARAM,
...PETITIONER
a Gandhi, Aged
, Machavaram,
RESPONDENT
aying that in the
Court may be
No.287/2024 in
dge, Krishna at
No.18/2024 and
mstances stated
ay be pleased to
file of the Court
ding disposal of
CMR,J
C.R.P.No.3011 of 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY
CMR,J
C.R.P.No.3011 of 2025
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:
The order, dismissing the petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of an advocate commissioner to locate the plaint schedule property, is questioned in this civil revision petition by the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the plaint for the sake of convenience.
4. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The suit was filed against her for declaration of title of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of the possession of the plaint schedule property. During the course of trial in the trial Court, the plaintiff herself has filed an application for appointment of an advocate commissioner to note the physical features of the plaint schedule property. The said petition was allowed and an advocate commissioner was appointed. The advocate commissioner has filed his report, stating that he could not identify and localize the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the measurements of the property could not be taken. After the trial, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant has filed an appeal in A.S.No.18 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Krishna. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendant has filed an application now for appointment of an advocate commissioner to localize the plaint schedule property. The said petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order.
CMR,J C.R.P.No.3011 of 2025
5. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is preferred by the defendant.
6. As noticed supra, an advocate commissioner was already appointed in the trial Court and he has filed his report clearly stating that he could not localize the plaint schedule property. Therefore, when the advocate commissioner has clearly filed report stating that he could not localize the plaint schedule property, it is really beyond the comprehension of this Court as to why the defendant has filed an application again for the same purpose of localizing the plaint schedule property, as the commissioner has already filed his report stating that he could localize the property. Apart from that when the report of the advocate commissioner stating that he could not localize the plaint schedule property was already accepted by the trial Court, it is settled law that the second commissioner cannot be appointed without setting aside the said report or scraping the said report. So, even on that ground also, the second petition for appointment of an advocate commissioner is not maintainable and it cannot be entertained.
7. The Kerala High Court has also held in the case of Balakrishna Menon and another v. Padmavathy Amma and another1 that appointment of second commissioner without setting aside the report of the first commissioner is illegal.
8. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of an advocate commissioner to localize the plaint schedule property. This Court finds no legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order. So, it warrants no interference in this revision.
1 AIR 1993 K 218
CMR,J C.R.P.No.3011 of 2025
9. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date: 23.01.2026 MDP