Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1379 (TS)

Sadabathula Dasharatham v. Shaik Siraj Ahmed

2025-11-04

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

body2025
ORDER : B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, J. 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order passed in I.A.No.302 of 2021 in OS No.9 of 2017 by the learned Junior Civil Judge -Cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Korutla, Jagtial District in dismissing the application filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner vide order dated 04.07.2022. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the suit vide OS.No.9 of 2017. 3.1. Petitioner has filed I.A.No.302 of 2021 under Order 26 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to fix the boundaries of suit Survey No.798 with the help of Mandal Surveyor or any other Superior Officer. 3.2. It is stated in the affidavit in IA.No.302 of 2021 that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the open land admeasuring Ac.00-09 guntas in Survey No. situated at Korutla Shivaru and within the limits of Korutla Revenue Mandal, Jagtial District and the respondents-defendants without having right, title or possession over the suit schedule land, interfered in his possession, which compelled him to file a suit for perpetual injunction. The respondents-defendants alleged to have the respective lands in Survey No.752 which is adjacent to the suit survey number i.e., 798 and they have also filed the respective suits in respect of the alleged lands in the above said survey number vide OS Nos.123 of 2015, 124 of 2015, 125 of 2015 and 126 of 2015 before the same Court which is pending consideration. The land of the petitioner and the lands of the respondents-defendants are pertaining to different survey numbers and both survey numbers are adjacent to each other. As such in view of both side suits and to come to a conclusion of both the conflicts placed in the suits, it is necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to fix the boundaries of the suit survey number. 4. Respondents-defendants have filed their counter and contended that they filed suits against the petitioner prior to filing the suit by him before the same Court vide OS Nos.123, 124, 125 and 126 of 2015 in respect of agriculture land to an extent of 9 ½ guntas each in Survey No. situated at Korutla Shivaru and Mandal and the same are pending. The suit filed by the petitioner is for perpetual injection in respect of land to an extent of Ac.00-9 guntas in Survey No. the burden lies on him to prove and establish his possession in respect of his property and the appointment of Advocate Commissioner leads to collection of evidence and prayed to dismiss the same. 5. The learned trial Court after considering the pleadings of the parties, has dismissed IA.No.302 of 2021 vide order dated 04.07.2022 which is impugned in the CRP. 6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.00-09 Guntas in the respondents without there being any right or title over the petitioner's land started illegal interference which led to filing the suit in OS No.9 of 2017. The respondents-defendants alleged to have their respective lands in Survey No.752 which is adjacent to the land of the petitioner in Therefore, IA No.302 of 2021 is filed under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for measuring the suit schedule property with the help of Mandal Surveyor. 6.2. The learned trial Court without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner and without looking into the legal position that for quietus of the litigation between the petitioner and the respondents- defendants instead of appointing an Advocate Commissioner for measuring the suit schedule property and simply stated that in an injunction suit, burden lies on the petitioner to prove his possession and enjoyment and the same has to be established by way of oral and documentary evidence, not by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The Court below failed to look into the grievance of the petitioner in proper perspective and erroneously dismissed the application and also failed to exercise its powers. 6.3. The Court below ought to have seen that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents in appointing an Advocate Commissioner for measuring and recording the physical features of the suit schedule property. In support of his contention has relied on the decision in the case of M/s. Va Innova Alloy Steel Tech Private Limited Vs. Avinash Daga , [2020 LawSuit (TS) 584] , and prayed to allow the CRP by setting aside the impugned order. 7. In support of his contention has relied on the decision in the case of M/s. Va Innova Alloy Steel Tech Private Limited Vs. Avinash Daga , [2020 LawSuit (TS) 584] , and prayed to allow the CRP by setting aside the impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the CRP. 8. Heard learned counsel, perused the material. 9. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the order passed by the learned trial Court in IA No.302 of 2021 in OS.No.9 of 2017 dated 04.07.2022 suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it requires interference of this Court or not? 10. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner: (See K. Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985). 11.1. It is stated in the plaint in Para No.5 that the respondents- defendants are strangers to the suit schedule property and they coveted eye over the same and several times demanded the petitioner-plaintiff to sell the suit schedule property to them at a cheaper rate. But the petitioner-plaintiff refused their proposal and they are seriously trying to interfere into his possession. 11.2. It is further stated in Para No.6 of the plaint that the respondents-defendants with the aid and help of unsocial elements and their strong supporters in the village without having right or interest over the plaint schedule property has commenced illegal and unauthorised interference on 20.01.2017. 11.3. 11.2. It is further stated in Para No.6 of the plaint that the respondents-defendants with the aid and help of unsocial elements and their strong supporters in the village without having right or interest over the plaint schedule property has commenced illegal and unauthorised interference on 20.01.2017. 11.3. The defense set up by the respondents-defendants in the written statement is that they are the exclusive owners and possessors of agriculture land to an extent of 9 ½ Guntas each in Survey No. situated at Korutla Shivar and Mandal, Jagtial District, Telangana State and they have purchased the same from the earlier owners under registered sale deeds and they have filed the suits against the petitioner-plaintiff at first in point of time in respect of their agricultural land in Survey No. for perpetual injunction vide OS.Nos.123, 124, 125 and 126 of 2015 and there is an injunction order in their favour which is served on the petitioner-plaintiff in OS.No.126 of 2015 in respect of the above said suits. The petitioner- plaintiff having suppressed the said facts and filed OS.No.9 of 2017 with false allegations. 12. The suit schedule property in OS.No.9 of 2017 is open land to an extent of Ac.00-09 Guntas in Survey No. with boundaries as East: Land of Machakameshwara Murthi, West: Land of Venkatreddy Gangadhar and others, North: Land of 30 feet road, South: Land of Kandla Gangaram and others. 13. On reading the affidavit filed by the petitioner in IA.No.302 of 2021, it is mentioned in Para No.4 that the respondents are having lands in Survey No.752 which is adjacent to the suit survey number i.e., 798. It is not the case of the petitioner-plaintiff in the plaint that the respondent's land is adjacent to the suit survey number and for the first time, it is brought in the affidavit contending that the suit survey number and the survey number of the respondents-defendants are adjacent to each other and to put a quietus, Advocate Commissioner be appointed to fix the boundaries of the suit survey number with the help of Mandal Surveyor. 14.1. 14.1. In M/s. VA Innova Alloy Steel Tech Pvt. Ltd., (supra) it is observed by the High Court that when there is a specific dispute with regard to the boundaries and one party is trying to encroach upon the other party's land, the Court can appoint an Advocate Commissioner in order to put a quietus to the litigation. 14.2. In the above said decision the petitioner’s property therein is in suit survey No.352/A1 whereas the lands of the respondent therein is in survey number 352/A2 and it is the contention of the respondent in the above said decision that the revision petitioner is trying to construct a compound wall on their land. The facts in the above decision are completely different with the case on hand in view of the fact that the lands of the respondents are not shown in any of the boundaries in the schedule property. 15. The learned trial Court has rightly held in its order that there is no pleading in the plaint that the lands of the respondents are situated in survey No.752 and the same is adjacent to the suit schedule property. 16. The plaint only states that the respondents-defendants tried to interfere over the petitioner’s possession, thereby, the suit came to be filed against them for perpetual injunction. The scope of Article 227 is limited and the learned trial Court has properly exercised its jurisdiction in dismissing the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner by assigning cogent reasons. 17. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case to set aside the impugned order and the order passed by the learned trial Court is with good reasons, hence, I'm not inclined to interfere with the same. 18. In the result, CRP is dismissed without costs.