Telangana High Court
Mohammad Mazaharoddin, vs Smt. Lakkakula Jayaprada, on 31 January, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.280 of 2025
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order, dated 29.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.164 of 2024 in I.A.No.66 of 2024 in I.A.No.196 of 2022 in O.S.No.59 of 2022 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Peddapally, wherein the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No.66 of 2024 to note down the physical features of the suit land and the nature of the suit land with respect to the registered documents of the proposed respondents and regarding the breach of injunction with/without the assistance of a Mandal Surveyor in the presence of the petitioners and proposed respondents was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs, have filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, rectification of the entries in revenue records and also cancellation of the earlier passbook and title deed issued in the name of one Lakkakula Jayaprada. It is further stated that along with the suit, the petitioners also filed I.A.No.196 of 2022 seeking 2 CVBR, J Crp_280_2025 to grant ad interim injunction restraining the respondent and her family members, agents and servants etc. from alienating the suit schedule property and the trial Court has granted ad interim injunction. It is further stated that the petitioners also filed I.A.No.66 of 2024 under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of C.P.C. seeking for detention of the defendant into civil prison as she has committed breach of ad interim injunction order, dated 20.03.2022. It is further stated that the land in Sy.Nos.898/1, 898/2 and 899/2 is in rectangular shape and all the lands are adjacent to one another and the registered documents do not have clear extent of land and it is necessary to investigate properly at the ground level. As such, the petitioners filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No.66 of 2024 to note down the physical features of the suit land and the nature of the land with respect to the registered documents of the proposed respondents. After considering the material on record, the trial Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that during subsistence of ex parte interim order, respondent No.1 had alienated the suit schedule property. It is settled proposition of law that ordinarily 3 CVBR, J Crp_280_2025 an Advocate Commissioner shall not be appointed to collect evidence in support of or against any party. Therefore, the petitioners have to prove the case by producing oral and documentary evidence as the dispute between the parties needs to be adjudicated with reference to the evidence being produced by both the parties. Further, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is only for local investigation or to note down physical features, if it is required for the purpose of elucidating the matter in dispute. In the instant case, the petitioners themselves stated that they requested for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the land of the defendants. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not require any interference of this Court as there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.
4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
5. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY 31.01.2025 gkv