Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Medhipalem Raja vs Ambakam Govindamma on 16 October, 2025
1
VS,J
C.R.P.No.295 of 2025
APHC010055692025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3333]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 295/2025
Between:
1. MEDHIPALEM RAJA, S/O. LATE GOVINDA REDDY, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, KARUR VILLAGE, TADA MANDAL,
TIRUPATI DISTRICT
2. MEDHIPALEM EDUMALAI, S/O LATE GOVINDA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, KARUR VILLAGE, TADA
MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT
3. MEDHIPALEM MURUGAN, S/O LATE GOVINDA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PUDI VILLAGE, TADA MANDAL,
TIRUPATI DISTRICT
4. MEDHIPALEM SEKHAR, S/O LATE GOVINDA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, KARUR VILLAGE, TADA
MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. AMBAKAM GOVINDAMMA, W/O. LATE ANGAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/O. KARUR VILLAGE, TADA
MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
2
VS,J
C.R.P.No.295 of 2025
2. AMBAKAM MANI, S/O LATE ANGAPPA REDDY, AGED
ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. MANNARPOLURU VILLAGE,
SULLURPET MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
3. AMBAKAM ARMUGAM, S/O LATE ANGAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. KARURU VILLAGE, TADA
MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying
that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High
Court may be pleased toBeg to present this Memorandum of Civil
Revision Petition aggrieved by the order dt.01.07.2024 made in
IA.No.260/2024 in OS.No.45/2022 on the file of the court of the
Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpet,
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further
proceedings including trial in O.S. No.45/2022 on the file of the
Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpet, pending disposal
of the above CRP and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
3
VS,J
C.R.P.No.295 of 2025
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants challenging the order dated 01.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.260 of 2024 in O.S.No.45 of 2022 on the file of Court of the Principal Civil Jude (Junior Division), Sullurpet, whereby, the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner to locate and to note down the physical features of suit „A‟ and „B‟ schedule properties with the help of mandal surveyor, Tada, was dismissed.
2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioners/defendants seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants, their men, agents, assignees, servants and others from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit „A‟ and „B‟ schedule properties. It is the contention of the respondents/plaintiffs that suit „B‟ schedule property is situated on the northern side of „A‟ schedule property, but, the northern boundary of „A‟ schedule property is shown as „land of Athupakam Kannippa‟. The petitioners/defendants on the other hand contended that the respondents/plaintiffs sold „A‟ schedule property 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.295 of 2025 to one Surapudi M. Kalanidhi, S/o Chinna Munaswamy of Karur village of Tada mandal, Tirupati district vide registered sale deed dated 09.02.2023, document No.509/2023 of S.R.O. Sulurpet wherein, the northern side boundary of „A‟ schedule property is shown as „lands of Ambakkam Govindamma‟, who is the 1 st respondent/1st plaintiff. However, it is the contention of petitioners/defendants that they are having residential houses in „B‟ schedule property in the land to an extent of Acs.0.0091/2 cents in S.No.163 of Karur village. As such, the petitioners/defendants filed I.A.No.260 of 2024 in O.S.No.45 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpet under Order XXVI rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking appointment of an advocate Commissioner to locate and to note down the physical features of the suit „A‟ and „B‟ schedule properties with the help of Mandal Surveyor, Tada. The trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 01.07.2024 dismissed the application filed by the petitioners by holding that the petitioners, without contesting the suit have filed the petition to drag on the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/defendants filed the present revision petition.
5
VS,J C.R.P.No.295 of 2025
3. When this matter came up for hearing on 25.07.2025, this Court has granted interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.45 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpet, initially for a period of six (6) weeks, which was extended thereafter from time to time.
4. Heard Mr. V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. Though notice was served on respondent Nos.1 to 3, there is no representation on their behalf.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners had only sought for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for noting down the actual physical features of the property and not to take up any roving enquiry or collection of evidence. However, the Trial Court, under the mistaken impression that the application has been filed for delaying the proceedings, dismissed the application.
6. Appointment of Commissioner etc., is contemplated under Section 75 of Code of Civil Procedure and Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 deals about the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner, which are extracted hereunder:
6
VS,J C.R.P.No.295 of 2025 "Section 75 - Power of court to issue commissions: -
Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the court may issue a commission-
1. to examine any person;
2. to make a local investigation;
3. to examine or adjust accounts; or
4. to make a partition;
5. to hold a scientific, technical, or expert investigation;
6. to conduct sale of property which is subject to speedy and natural decay and which is in the custody of the Court pending the determination of the suit;
7. to perform any ministerial act.
Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10: -
9. Commissions to make local investigations.--In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court:
10. Procedure of Commissioner.--
(1) The Commissioner, after such local inspection as he deems necessary and after reducing to writing the evidence taken by him, shall return such evidence, together with his report in writing signed by him, to the Court.
(2) Report and depositions to be evidence in suit.
Commissioner may be examined in person.--The report of 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.295 of 2025 the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him (but not the evidence without the report) shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record; but the Court or, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation.
(3) Where the Court is for any reason dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner, it may direct such further inquiry to be made as it shall think fit."
7. Admittedly, the object of issuance of commission under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 of C.P.C., is to elucidate any matter in dispute but not to collect or gather evidence. An Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for making an enquiry about factum of possession of the property in dispute, which is nothing but collecting evidence and not elucidating the matter in dispute. In any suit in which the court feels that a local investigation is necessary, for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court. If the Court thinks that Commission is necessary for adjudicating any matter in dispute, it can appoint advocate Commissioner.
8
VS,J C.R.P.No.295 of 2025
8. In Bandaru Mutyalu Vs. Palli Appalaraju1, learned single Judge of composite High Court held that in situations where there is controversy as to identification, location or measurement of the land, local investigation should be done at an early stage so that the parties are aware of the report of the Commissioner and go to trial prepared and the object of local investigation under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code which cannot be littled.
9. Admittedly, O.S.No.45 of 2022 was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants. On a perusal of the material available on record, prima facie, there is a dispute with regard to the boundaries of the suit „A‟ and „B‟ schedule properties, which resulted in filing of the application by the petitioners/defendants under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC. The trial Court, having observed that the suit seeking permanent injunction can be concluded on merits by considering the oral and documentary evidence, which in the considered opinion of this Court is untenable. Whenever there is a dispute regarding boundaries or physical features of the property or any allegation of encroachment as narrated by one party and 1 2013 (6) ALT 26 9 VS,J C.R.P.No.295 of 2025 disputed by another party, the facts have to be physically verified, because, the recitals of the documents may not reveal the true facts and measuring of land on the spot by a Surveyor may become necessary.
10. In Arvind Kumar Agarwal v. Legend Estates (P) Ltd., Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad2, this Court held as under:
Ordinarily, in a suit for injunction, an Advocate Commissioner is not appointed to gather evidence. Only in cases where there is a serious dispute regarding identity of the property or boundaries thereof, an Advocate-Commissioner can be appointed even in the suits filed for injunction (See : Haryana Wakf Board v. Shanti Sarup and Varala Ramachandra Reddy v. Mekala Yadi Reddy).
11. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the necessity to appoint an advocate commissioner. The appointment of Commissioner for the intended purpose would undoubtedly assist the Court to come to a reasonable and just conclusion.
12. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Principal Civil Jude (Junior Division), Sullurpet in I.A.No.260 of 2024 in O.S.No.45 of 2022 is hereby set- 2 (2015) 2 ALD 206 10 VS,J C.R.P.No.295 of 2025 aside. As such, the trial Court is requested to initiate consequential action in accordance with law.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:16.10.2025 Gss