CRP/4333/2025 of Sri Vala Srinivas Rao Vs Nuzhat Zamani, (Died) per LRs on 9 January 2026

ORDER:

Aggrieved by the order dated 16. lO.2O25 in 1 A' No' 182 of 2024 in O.S. No. 15O of 2015 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial, appointing an Advocate Commissioner, this Civil Rcvrsion Petition is filed by the unsuccessful Defendants 4 and 5 in Lhe suit'

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. The case of plaintiffs is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of dry land in Survey No' 42 to an extent of Ac. 2.35 guntas, situated at Naspur Village, Mancherial Town - \ _'ri and Mandal, Adilabad District. When Revenu': arulhorities (De fendants 1 to 3) tried to dispossess plaintrf s lrom the schedule lancls without following due process of Lr .', they hled Writ Petition No. 1 11 12 of 2Ol3 which was dispost r of by order dated 23.O3.2O13 directing not to disposscss l) rintiff No l except in accordance with iaw after putting her cr notice and giving an opportunity of being heard. Desp I :, Revenue authorities issued Form-D 1 and proceedings date'i 13 05 '2013 assigning plaintiff s land in favour of the 4t 1 clefendant, therefore, plaintiffs filed Contempt Case No. 161fi ol 2013' In this Contemltt Case, Revenue off-rcials filed a r additional counter along vvith a Plan showing plaintiffs' lar I in BLUE colour and the land allotted to Defendant No 4 in BROWN colour and contended that both are different Iar ls' On the strength of the counter, this Court closed the Contt: rpt Case by order dated 1O.04.20 15.

3. 1. Lzrter, plaintiffs filed another Conten- l t Case No' 102 1 of 2015 stating that Revenue authorities plar :d fraud by manipulating the Plan, showing the schedule rl property elsewhere in Illue Colour, while the fact remains tt rt schedule of property zts shown in Brown colour on ly tc avoid the consequences of contempt' This Court while closing the case by order dated 3 I .07.20 15 has 'observed that 'the question whether the land shown in brown colour belongs to petitioner or tothe4tl,respondentisextraneoustotheclrderpassedinthe writPetition.ThisCourtwhileexaminingwhetherornotthe petitigner was dispossessed in violation of the order passed in Writ Petition, cannot, in summary procecdings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, adjuclicate whether the land shown in the map in brown colour belongs to petitioner or to the fourth respondent. These are all matters for adjudication in a civil suit Iiled before the Competent Civil Court' " ''

3.2. In tune r'r'ith the observations in the Contempt Case, plaintiffs filed O'S' No l5O of 2015 before the Senior Civil Judge at Mancherial, under Sectio n 26' Order-VII Rule- 1 of C.P.C., for declaration of title in respect of schedule of property ., and that schedule of property is located in Brown Colour in the Plan and for consequential injunction' ln the said suit' plaintiffs hled the subject Application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Sec. 151 CPC to appoint Advocate Commissioner to trace out the fact that suit schedule boundaries or boundary named persons or their legal heirs identity available in brown - \ '- :t \

and blue colour of the location map, for adjuc i ation of the case. Learne'd Assistant Government Pleader for )cfendants 1 to 3 (Reventre authorities) has not objected for a 1 pointment of Advocate Commissioner. However, the unoffrcial )efendants 5 and 6 filed counter afhdavit contesting the IA rlleging that plaintiffs can prove their case by adducing coz nt oral and documentaq' evidence but not by resorting to ap lointment of Advocate Commissioner and by way of ap1 rintmcrit of Commissiont:r the party is not expected to gather :l c evidencc, 3.3. 'lhe court below allowed the I.A. by tL r order under Revision holdlng that to declare the title of thc r r-rit schedule property, thr:re should not be ambiguity with lt lard to suit schedule pr()perty. Therefore, it is necessary tt .lppoint an Advocate Commissioner to give clarity to adjudi,: tc the case. Challenging r,he said order, this Revision is filed.

4. I{eard learned counsel for petitione- Sri M.R.S. Srinivas. He argues that trial Court failed to urr lcrstand thc scope and significance of Section 73 and Order X) VI Rule 9 of CPC. In a dispute regarding boundaries and id: rtihcation of neighbouring owners must be established lr oral and documentary evidence but not by way of local inve; igation, that - toobeforecross-examinationofPW3.ThesubjectApplication was taken out only [o cover up the lacunas as plaintiffs failed to adduce proper evidence in their favour'

4.7. In support of his contentions, lcarned counsel relied on the judgments it Yenugonda Bal Redd'g u' Manemmal ' Batdhu Naragdna RoLo a. Batchu Venkata Narasirnha Raoz and So:rala Jain v. Sangu Gangadhars '

5. Heard Sri C. Kumar, iearned counsel for plaintiffs - Respondents 1 to 5. To justify his contenlions, he relied on the judgments in Haryana Waqf Board u' Shcnti Sarupa ' P. Sreedeui a. II\LN Venkata Lo'kshmi Narrrsimha Praso.ds ' Shaik Zareend Kaso:m a. Patan Sado,b Khan6, Smt' A' Loxmd.mmd a. S771t. A. VenkatannmaT, M. Yadaiah u. M. Hilkammas; AdoLrsh Constnrctions, Hgderabad t)' ' lzotll 2 ALD 472 ' (20 to) s RLo 8s r 1zo to; s ALD r97 ' (2008)8 scc 67 I ' 202016l ALD 99 (TSl (DB) " 201il4) ALD 231 ' zotogtl ALT 795 (sB) ^ zozzlzl ALD 299 (TSl

-

Qolrnaantnnisa Begume, Singidi Ram Reatt'y u' Kota Sudhakar GuPtalo. lior better understanding, Order XXV Rule-9 CPC is extracted below: Commissions to m(,,ke local inaestigations

I)rovided that, where the State Government I i ; madc rules as to the persons to rvhom such commission shall be issL'd the Colrrt shall be bourrd [rY such rules." In the factual scenario, it is necessary o look at the judgments r<:lied on by the respective counsel. ln Yenugonda Bal Reddg's case (sr-rJ, r), it is held

In any sult in which the Court deems a local rt be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating a dispute, or ,t[ ascertaining the market-value of any 1lt< amount of anY mesne profrts or damages or annual rt Court may issttc a commission to such person as it thinl{ him to make such investigation and to report thereon to tlr that appointment of advocate commissioner for r< features ancl for local investigation amounts t( ' er.idcnce by the petitioner and is not permissiblc the case on hand, plaintiffs allege manipulation : Rev6nue authorities. Therefore, there is no error .estigation to ry matter in )ert\', or the profits, the , fit directing Court -ing physical collection of nder lari.,. In map by the -r appointing " zozzl+1AlD I 12 (TS) tozo231+1ALD 346 (TS)

- an advocate commissioner to resolve the dispute as to whether there is manipulation of map or not.

7.1. In Batchu Naragana Rao's case and Sarald Jain's case, it is observed that appointment of advocate commissi.oner to identify the suit schedule property and to fix boundaries is found fault. As stated above advocate commissioner is appointed in the case on hand only to resolve the dispute of manipulation of map. Thus, the judgments relied on by Defendants (Petitioners herein) are of no help to them'

7.2. ln Haryana Waqf Boards case, thc Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a case of demarcation of disputed land, it is appropriate for the Court to direct investigation by appointing a local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC- 7.3. ln P. Sreedeui's case, a learned Division Bench of this Court held that when there is a dispute of localizaLion or demarcation of property, the best course of action is lo appoint an Advocate Commissioner/ Surveyor for localization'

7.4. In Shaik Zareena Kasann's case (supra), this Court held that whenever there is a dispute regarding boundaries or physical features of the property or any allegation

- ofencroachrrlen[aSnarratedbyonepartyandclislutedbythe other, the fircts have to be physically verifred' lecause the recitals of ttLc documents may not reveal the t- e lacts and Iand on the spot by a Surv': or/Advocate measuring of Commissiontrr may become necessary'

7.5. ln Smt. A. Laxm,,',rrnta's case (supr: , this Court justified the reppointment o[ an Advocate Conr nissioner to resolve the tssue relating to correctness or oth( -wise of the sketch map said to have been ltled by one party'

7.6. ln M' Yatdariah's case (supra), this C: lrt held that Section 75 CPC deals with appointment rf Advocate Commissiont:r and envisages that a Commiss r' ner can be appointed to zrid the Court, as such, a Commis:; >ner may bc appointed to cxamine any person, to make local inr :stigation' to examine or adjust accounts, to make a partil-i') r ' to holcl a scientific or lechnical or expert investigation, to c-: rduct sale of property, in the circumstances mentioned therein 'r to perform a ministerial act.

7.7. ln Adarsh Constructionsls case (supr '), this Court held that thcre is no absolute bar for appointme;r of Advocate Commission,:r in a suit for injunction simplicitor' :ither in the course of trial or during enquiry in a temporary injunctton petrtlon.

7. a. In Singidi Ram Reddgis case (supra)' this Court held that 'the argument advanced by the counsel for the revision petitioners is liable to be rejected' in view of the facts of the present case, wherein the relief that is being claimed by the plaintiff is for permanent injunction with a specific plea that the subject land is an agricultural land' whereas the defence in the written statement is to the effect that the plaintiff has changed the boundaries in the subsequent sale deed from the original sale deed in the above factual scenario' for deciding the lis in the suit, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner would certainly be helpful as the dispute regarding the boundaries of the suit schedule property will be appreciated with the help of the report that may bc filed by the Advocate-Commissioner''

8. From the above judgments' the principles to be culminatedare,i)thereisnobarinappointinganAdvocate Commissioner in a civil suit; ii) when the boundaries and the exact location of the suit schedule land is in dispute' appointment of Advocate Commissioner will be more helpful for the court to decide the lis; iii) in case of demarcation of land'

l0 appointment ol Advocate Commissioner is much t t lpful; and iv) to resolve thc issue relating to correctness or o[l] rwise of the sketch map said to have been hled by one party, a1 lointment of Advocate Cornmissioner is justifiab[e.

9. Il is also to be seen, Order XXVI lule 9 CPC empowers Courts to appoint commissiolr; for local investigations when necessary to elucidate matter in dispute, ascertain property values, or determine mestt profits or damages. This provision ensures that Courts can I rtain precise and direct information from the loctts in qu: facilitating informed and just dccisions. However, appoi .l ment o[ a Commissioncr under tl-ris Rule is discretionary anc depends on the specifics of each catse. Courts consider the Ir cessity ol a local investigation to resolve the dispute effe: ivel1'. For instance, in boundarv disputes or cases invr I 'ing alleged encroachments, a Commissioner's report can prorri : : crucial on site insights lhat are otherwise unattainable.

10. In the case on hand, plaintiffs dispr te the map (land shown in blue colour/ brown colour) proc r ced by the Revenue authorities. Therefore, to make local i .vestigation, identify the suit schedule land and its boundarir: , the Court II below appointed an Advocate Commissioner. This Court hnds no flaw in such an action in the factual scenario of the extant case, hence is of the opinion that this Revision does not merit consideraIion No costs t2 The Civil Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed

6. Two CD CoPies M/ /ITRUE COPY// sd N.CHA NDRA SEKHAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge' at Mancherial'

2. The District Collector' Mancherial District' Mancherial'

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer' Mancherial' Mancherial District

4. The Tahsrldar' Mancherial Mandal and District'

5. One CC to SRI M R S SRINIVAS' Advocate IOPUCI kul

HIGH COURT DATED:09/01t2026

ORDER

CRP.No.4333 of 2025 F i1 4t6 Ii ri8 2{126 t t ) l- ti I C) -).. \r ,-rd) : ;PATC

DISMTSSING THE CIVIL RE\/ISION PETITION $ \"n Lt