Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 930 (TS)

Neerati Swapna v. Gundeti Narendar

2025-07-17

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

body2025
ORDER : MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J. The present Civil Revision Petition (CRP) has been filed against an order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal (‘Trial Court’) in I.A.No.462 of 2025 in O.S.No.274 of 2019 filed by the respondent/plaintiff. 2. The petitioners before the Court are the defendants in the Suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of an Agreement entered into between the parties for the suit schedule land and for a direction on the defendants to register the suit schedule land in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed an I.A. in the Suit for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for measuring the existing physical features of the suit schedule land with the help of a technical person. 4. The impugned order records the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners/defendants and the respondent/plaintiff. The Trial Court thereafter records that both the parties have agreed that the suit schedule land was encroached by Vaagdevi College. The encroachment is on a part of the total area of the suit schedule land consisting of 1210 square yards. The Trial Court further records that the encroachment took place during pendency of the Suit and further that the respondents’ (the petitioners herein) possession of the suit schedule land must be established by both the parties leading evidence at the time of trial. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ defendants. Counsel places paragraph 8 of the counter filed by the petitioners/defendants before the Trial Court wherein the petitioners have stated that out of a total extent of 1210 square yards, only 915 square yards of land is available. Paragraph 8 of the counter appears to reflect paragraph VIII of the plaint which states that the surveyor in the month of September, 2019 in the presence of the defendant No.1 and her father (the defendant No.1 is the petitioner No.1 in the present CRP) was shocked to note that instead of 1210 square yards, only 915 square yards of land was available. 6. The Court has considered the submissions made by counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants in the Suit. The Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the CRP. The reasons are stated under. 7. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court gives clear reasons for appointing of an Advocate Commissioner. 6. The Court has considered the submissions made by counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants in the Suit. The Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the CRP. The reasons are stated under. 7. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court gives clear reasons for appointing of an Advocate Commissioner. The primary reason is that both the parties did not dispute the fact of encroachment of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court further noted that the encroachment took place during the pendency of the Suit. These reasons would be sufficient for appointing an Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 29 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 . Under the said provision, a Commissioner for local investigation may be allowed in any matter where the Court deems such local investigation to be necessary and proper for the purpose, inter alia, of elucidating any matter in dispute. 8. The impugned order records the fact of encroachment which fact was also not disputed by any of the parties including the petitioners herein. 9. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. It is also relevant that the petitioners/defendants have not been able to show any prejudice which the petitioners would suffer if the Advocate Commissioner is appointed to note the physical features and the extent of land available with the boundaries. 10. CRP.No.2362 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.