Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/3008/2025 of Manchineni Harish, Vs Manchineni Uma Devi, on 20 November 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3008 of 2025 Between: 1. MANCHINENI HARISH, S/O.
APHC010595252025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3008 of 2025
Between:
1. MANCHINENI HARISH, S/O. VISVESWARA RAO, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.5-71, BESIDE RAMALAYAM, NIDAMANUR VILLAGE, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, NTR
DISTRICT.
2. MANCHINENI RAMA KRISHNA, S/O. VISVESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.5-71, BESIDE
RAMALAYAM. NIDAMANUR VILLAGE, VIJAYAWADA RURAL
MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. MANCHINENI UMA DEVI, W/O. DHARMA RAO, AGED ABOUT
74 YEARS, R/O. NIDAMANUR VILLAGE, VIJAYAWADA
RURAL MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT.
2. SMT PATHURI JAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/O. G-4, GROUND FLOOR, PATHURI TOWERS, NEAR OLD PANCHAYAT OFFICE, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. CHERUVU CHAITANYA BHARGAVA SARMA
CMR,J
C.R.P.No.3008 of 2025
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SOHIT CHANDRA TRIPURANENI
The Court made the following:
CMR,J
C.R.P.No.3008 of 2025
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3008 of 2025
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.
O R D E R:
Assailing the order dated 16.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.770 of 2024 in O.S.No.462 of 2015 on the file of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, whereby the petition filed by the 1st respondent herein/plaintiff in the suit, under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C., to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, was allowed, the present civil revision petition has been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the said petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff, who is appearing on caveat.
3. The 1st respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.462 of 2015 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, for declaration of title and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the illegal constructions made in the disputed site by encroaching onto the land of the plaintiff. During the course of trial, the plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.770 of 2024 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. to appoint an advocate commissioner to note
CMR,J C.R.P.No.3008 of 2025
down the physical features of item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor and to prepare a sketch of the properties with measurements. The said request to appoint an advocate commissioner is made to ascertain whether there is any encroachment made onto the suit schedule property by the defendants and whether any illegal construction was made in it. The trial Court, by the impugned order, allowed the said petition and appointed an advocate commissioner as prayed for.
4. The said order is now challenged by defendant Nos.1 and 2 on the ground that even though the 1st defendant, as 1st respondent in I.A.No.770 of 2024, has filed a counter opposing the said petition, the trial Court has completely ignored the said counter and stated in para 4 of the impugned order that respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not choose to file any counter.
5. As can be seen from the document produced at page No.12 of the material papers, it is evident that the 1st defendant, as 1st respondent in I.A.No.770 of 2024, has filed his counter opposing the said I.A. and it also contains the stamp of VII Additional District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Vijayawada, showing that it was received on 21.07.2025. Therefore, it is obvious that without considering the counter filed by the 1st respondent in the I.A. opposing the said
CMR,J C.R.P.No.3008 of 2025
petition, the petition was allowed. It amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice.
6. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the trial Court to pass orders afresh in I.A.No.770 of 2024, after considering the counter that is filed by respondent No.1 therein/defendant No.1 and after hearing both the parties.
7. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to consider the counter filed by respondent No.1 in I.A.No.770 of 2024 and hear both sides afresh and then pass orders in the said petition according to law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 21.11.2025 IBL
CMR,J C.R.P.No.3008 of 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3008 of 2025
Dt: 21.11.2025 IBL