CRP/2712/2026 of Macha Shankar alias Thimothi Vs Varna Vidyadhar Reddy on 24 September 2026

: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TANGIRALA MADHAVI DEVI CryIL REVISIONPETITION NO.2712 OF 2026 (CNR No.HBHC0to60 4202026) DATED:24.0 9.2026 Between Macha Shankar @ Thimothi and another . Petitioners AND Varna Vidyadhar Reddy . Respondent

ORDER

This civil Revision petition (cRp) is fired against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimn a+ar dt.l3 .07 .2026 in LA.No.95 I ol 2025 in o.S.No.l477 of 2022 appointing an Advocate Commissioner under brder 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of cpc. T'he petitioners j TMD,J

herein are the defendants and thc respondent helein is the plaintiff in the sult.

2. The plaintiff has fited I.A.No.951 of 2025 in the suit for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the boundalies of Survey No.737 of Gundi Village, Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District, but the defendants have opposed the satne by filing a counter affidavit. The main grievance of the defendants to the said I.A., is that the defendants are claiming possession of the property in Survey No.738 of the same village and several I.As., have been filed by both parties and are pending cousideration before the trial Court and without considering the suure, the present I.A. for appointrnent of an Advocate Cornmissioner has been taken up for consideration.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners therefore submitted that the tlial Court has erred in allowing I'A.No.95l of 2025 for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner even before the trial has started and without referring to the exact survey number which has to be surveyed by the Advocate Commissioner it

TMD,J C.R.P. No.27l2 of2026

4. Leamed counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, hou,ever, supported the impugned order and placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Waqf Board Vs. Shanti Sarup and othersr and also a decision of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of G.L.purusotham and others Vs. y.Nagaraju and others2. Further, he submitted that the I.As., which are pending before the trial Court, are independent and they can be considered independentlv and have no relation whatsoever with regard to I'A No'95 1 ol 2025 for appointment of the Advocate commissioner. He also submits that the plaintiff is claiming possession over their land in Survey No.737, rvhereas the defendants are claiming possession over their land in Survcy No.738 and that the fixation of boundaries between the two survey numbers is necessary to resolve the dispute between the parties and that the same has been taken note of by the triar court while allowing. I.A.No.95 1 of 2025. He submitted that the trial Court, after considering the rival contentions, has appointed the Advocate commissioner by ensuring that the Advocate commissioner shall not mention about the possession of the schedule property and to take the I MANU sc/7818/2008

- \,1AN Ui A P/055 I /20 t 5 (2008) E scc 67 t 2015(5) ALD 460

TMD.J

assistance of the Mandal Surveyor in demarcating the boundaries of the sulvey numbers.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record' this court finds that the trial court has taken a conscious decision about the appointment of the Advocate Corntnissioner by observing that the Advocate commissioner shall not fix the boundaries and shall not enquire into or express any opinion with regard to title, possession' encroachment, legality of constr.uction or alleged violation of the interirn injunction order, but shall confine to fixation of boundaries in Survey numbersorrly.ThoughthisCourtisoftheopinionthatthetrialCoutt has erred in not mentioning Survey No.737 in the penultimate paragraph of its order, but since sufficient safeguards have been ensured that the report of the Advocate commissioner shall r.rot be for collection of evidence,butitisonlytofixtheboundariesofSurveyNo.T3Twhichthe plaintiff is claiming to be in possession, this Court does not find any reason to interfele with the order of the trial Court except to modify Para 20.4 0f the order dr.13.07.2026 in I.A'No.951 0f 2025 in o'S'No'1477 of 2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar to the e#eft that the warrant shall be in respect of Survey No'737 only'

TMD,J C.R.P. No.27l2 of 2026

6. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

1. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ petition shail stand closed

//TRUE COPY// SD/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (_ SECTbN OFFICER To, M/

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

2. One CC to SRl. MADAS BHARATH CHANDRA Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to SRl. SRIKANTH HARIHARAN Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD CoPies TPt</GNK

HIGH COURT DATED: 2410912026 trE srAr e' oi' ( a: :lf '-,-.r

i. i,,., 't t!. "' ,',, 2 s sEP m26 .t lj ...:.'

ORDER

CRP.No.2712 of 2026 CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISPOSED OF

tb q \q {l x/