Ramadugu Madhusudhan vs Bhukya Srinu

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2663 of 2026


Between :

Ramadugu Madhusudhan S/o.Brahmaiah,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.H.no.16-10-1278/1, Opp to Ramalayam,
Shiva Nagar, Warangal Town,
Mandal & District and another.

….Petitioners/Plaintiffs
VERSUS
Bhukya Srinu S/o.Bheema
Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o.Veeraram Thanda,
H/o. Shanigapuram Village,
Mahabubabad Mandal & District.
PS. Gachibowli, Hyderabad.
Rep by its Public Prosecutor and seven others.
… Respondents

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 04.11.2026

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the
Judgments?

Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

Yes/No
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish
to see the fair copy of the Judgment?
Yes/No


_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J

2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2663 of 2026
% Dated 04.11.2026

# Ramadugu Madhusudhan S/o.Brahmaiah,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.H.no.16-10-1278/1, Opp to Ramalayam,
Shiva Nagar, Warangal Town,
Mandal & District and another
….Petitioners/Plaintiffs

VERSUS
$ Bhukya Srinu S/o.Bheema
Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o.Veeraram Thanda,
H/o. Shanigapuram Village,
Mahabubabad Mandal & District.

… Respondent

! Counsel for Petitioners : Mrs. N.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi

^ Counsel for Respondent : Mr. K. Siddhartha,

< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. 2013 (4) ALD 347
2. 2015 (2) ALD 206
3. (2021) 1 ALD 92
4. (2020) 4 ALT 433
5. 2026 SCC OnLine TS 5651

3
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2663 of 2026
(CNR No. HBHC010592912026)

Date: 04.11.2026

Reserved on: 30.10.2026 Pronounced on : 04.11.2026
Uploaded on : 04.11.2026

Between:
Ramadugu Madhusudhan and another
... Petitioners/plaintiffs
AND
Bhukya Srinu
... Respondent/defendant
O R D E R :
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the
petitioners/plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
aggrieved by the order, dated 16.06.2026, passed by the learned Senior
Civil Judge, Mahabubabad (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’), in
I.A.No.534 of 2025 in O.S. No.131 of 2025, whereby the application
filed by the defendant seeking appointment of an Advocate-
Commissioner to identify the suit land in Sy.Nos.273/4, 275/1 and
275/4 and to note down the physical features of the suit land with the
assistance of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records,
Mahabubabad, was allowed.

4
2. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the
respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.131 of 2025. For the sake of
convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in
the suit in O.S.No.131 of 2025 before the learned trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case :
3.1. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.131 of 2025 before the Senior
Civil Judge at Mahabubabad for grant of perpetual injunction
restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and
enjoyment over the Item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties. In
the said suit, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.534 of 2025
seeking appointment of advocate commissioner for identification of suit
lands in Sy.Nos.273/4, 275/1 and 275/4 and to note down physical
features of suit land with the assistance of Assistant Director of Survey
and Land Records, Mahabubabad, on the ground that the plaintiffs
have mentioned the wrong boundaries in respect of the suit schedule
properties, especially the properties mentioned in the suit schedule did
not belong to the plaintiffs and the identification of the schedule
property is also in dispute. To resolve the said dispute and for proper
adjudication of the suit proceedings, appointment of an advocate
commissioner for identification of the suit lands and to note down
physical features of the suit land is very much required. The learned
trial Court allowed the said application through impugned order dated

5
16.06.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed the present civil
revision petition.
4. Heard Mrs. N.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the
petitioners, and Mr. K.Sidhartha, learned counsel representing M/s.
RVR Associates appearing for the respondent.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that the
plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant
from interfering with the suit schedule properties, especially the initial
burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove the case and the suit has not
ripened for trial. He further submitted that even before commencement
of the trial, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.534 of 2025
seeking appointment of advocate commissioner for identification suit
schedule properties with boundaries and to note down the physical
features with the assistant of Assistant Director of Survey and Land
Records. The application filed by the defendant amounts to gathering
evidence and the same is not permitted under law.
5.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs have
specifically mentioned in the counter that the boundaries mentioned in
respect of the suit schedule properties are correct. Whether the
boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule properties are correct or
not, the same will be revealed during the course of trial. Even before

6
the matter has not ripened for trial, the defendant filed the application
and the same is a premature one and the impugned order passed by
the learned trial Court is contrary to law.
5.3. In support of her contentions, learned counsel relied upon the
following judgments/orders:
1. A. Gopal Reddy v. R. Subramanyam Reddy and
1
another ;
2. Arvind Kumar Agarwal v. Legend Estates (P) Ltd.,
2
Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad .
3. Order of this Court in C.R.P.No.647 of 2026 dated
16.07.2026 between M. Rahashekhar Reddy and
Madireddy Narender Reddy and another .
4. Order of this Court in C.R.P.No.2226 of 2025 dated
15.10.2025 between Reddyshetty Srihari and
another v. Sureneni Chakradhar Rao.
6. Submissions of learned counsel for the respondent :
6.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant
submitted that the plaintiffs, without having any manner of right,
interest, title over the subject properties, filed the suit for grant of
perpetual injunction by mentioning the wrong boundaries in respect of
the suit schedule properties with an intention to occupy the property of
the defendant. Hence, the defendant rightly filed the application

1
2013 (4) ALD 347
2
2015 (2) ALD 206

7
invoking the provision of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the C.P.C. and the same
is very much required to resolve the dispute between the parties. By
virtue of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court in
appointing the advocate commissioner, no prejudice would be caused
to the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court has rightly allowed the
application by giving cogent reasons and there are no grounds to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.
Hence, the civil revision petition filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be
dismissed.
6.2. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following
judgments:
1. V.A. Innova Alloy Steel Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. Avinash
3
Daga ;
2. P. Sreedevi v. IVLN Venkata Lakshmi Narsimha
4
Prasad ; and
5
3. Sura Sunitha v. Cheruku Ramesh and another

Analysis :
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals
that the plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the
defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment over the

3
(2021) 1 ALD 92
4
(2020) 4 ALT 433
5
2026 SCC OnLine TS 5651

8
Item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties. The defendant filed an
application in I.A.No.534 of 2025 on 24.10.2025 invoking the
provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C.
seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner for identification of
the suit lands within the boundaries, which are in Sy.Nos.273/4,
275/1 and 275/4, and to note down physical features of suit land in
Item Nos.1 to 3 boundaries with the assistance of Assistant Director of
Survey and Land Records, Mahabubabad. The defendant filed the
written statement on 17.10.2025 and immediately thereafter, i.e., on
24.10.2025, he filed the present application in I.A.No.534 of 2025 on
the ground that the plaintiffs have wrongly mentioned the boundaries
in respect of the suit schedule properties and they are trying to occupy
the property of the defendant. Even according to the learned counsel
for the parties, the matter before the learned trial Court has not ripened
for trial.
8. The record discloses that the nature of the relief sought in the
suit is a simple suit for perpetual injunction. The defendant filed the
written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and stated
that the plaintiffs are wrongly mentioned the boundaries in respect of
the suit schedule properties with an intention to claim his property.
Whether the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property is
correct or not, the parties have to adduce necessary evidence. Even
before the matter has not ripened for trial, the defendant filed the

9
application not only noting down the physical features of the suit
schedule properties, but also for identification of the suit lands within
the boundaries, which are in Sy.Nos.273/4, 275/1 and 275/4, with the
assistance of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records,
Mahabuabad, and the learned trial Court allowed application, as
prayed for.
9. It is relevant to mention that in a suit for perpetual injunction,
the initial burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove his/her case and also
the Court is having a power to appoint an advocate commissioner to
note down the physical features of the suit schedule property at any
point of time even before the commencement of trial. However, in the
case on hand, the defendant filed an application seeking appointment
of advocate commissioner for identification of the suit land within the
boundaries, which are in Sy.Nos.273/4, 275/1 and 275/4, and to note
down the physical features of the suit land with the assistance of the
Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Mahabubad, even
before the matter had not ripened for trial and if the plaintiffs have
mentioned the wrong boundaries, the defendant can take the same as a
defence in the suit and he is entitled to put forth his case during the
course of trial and the appointment of advocate commissioner cannot
be made at threshold, as the same amounts to gathering evidence.
10. It is also relevant to extract the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as follows:

10
“Order 26 Rules 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:
Provided that, where the State Government has made
rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be
issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules.”
11. The above said provision clearly envisages that in any suit, the
Court deems a local investigation to be required for the purpose of
elucidating any matter in dispute, the Court may issue a Commission
of such person, as it needs for directing him to make such investigation
and to report thereon to the Court.
12. In A. Gopal Reddy ( supra ) and in Arvind Kumar Agarwal
( supra ), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh specifically held that the
initial burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove the identity of the property
by adducing his own evidence and it is only after both the parties
adducing their respective evidence, if any ambiguity prevails with
reference to the identify of the property, that the Court on its own or on
the application of either party, may appoint an Advocate Commissioner
and further it was held that the Advocate Commissioner cannot be
appointed at the threshold. In M. Rajshekhar Reddy ( supra ), this

11
Court reiterated the very same principle. In Reddyshetti Srihar
( supra), this Court held that the respondent therein sought to identify
and locate his land with the assistance of an advocate commissioner,
which is impermissible in law, as it would amount to collecting
evidence.
13. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the
respondent/defendant that there is no bar for appointing an advocate
commissioner even before commencement of trial and an advocate
commissioner can be appointed in a suit for perpetual injunction and it
does not amounts to collecting of evidence, is concerned, it is not in
dispute that in a suit for perpetual injunction, an advocate
commissioner can be appointed at threshold for noting down the
physical features of the property in dispute. However, in the case on
hand, the defendant is not only seeking to note down the physical
features, but also sought the other relief for identification of the suit
schedule properties with the assistance of the Assistant Director of
Survey and Land Records, Mahabubabad. Hence, this Court is of the
considered view that in a case of this nature, the application for
appointment of an advocate commissioner at threshold itself cannot be
entertained, as the same would amount to gathering evidence.
14. The judgments relied upon the learned counsel for the
respondent/defendant in Sura Sunitha ( supra ), this Court held that in
a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter, the Court has the

12
discretion to appoint an Advocate Commissioner where there exists a
serious dispute regarding the identification or boundaries of the suit
schedule property. However, the Commissioner’s report shall be
confined to noting the physical features and identifying the property
and shall not record any particulars regarding the person in actual
possession, as possession is a matter to be determined by the Court on
the basis of evidence adduced by the parties.
15. In P. Sreedevi ( supra ), this Court held that when the appellants
claimed land in one survey number and the respondents claimed the
property in a different survey number and where there was a genuine
dispute regarding identification and localization of the properties, the
trial Court ought to have first considered the application seeking
appointment of a Surveyor. Further, this Court held that when the
identity and location of the property are in dispute, a survey and
demarcation with reference to relevant revenue and survey records
would assist the Court in properly adjudicating the dispute. The trial
Court should consider such an application before deciding the interim
relief applications on the ground that the identity of the property has
not been established.
16. In Bandana Mutyalu ( supra ), this Court held that an Advocate
Commissioner may be appointed for local investigation even ex parte ,
without issuing prior notice to the opposite party, as Order XXVI Rule 9

13
CPC does not mandate issuance of notice before the appointment of a
commissioner. The requirement under Order XXVI Rule 18 CPC
contemplates issuance of notice after the appointment of the
Commissioner and not before such appointment. Therefore, the Court
is empowered to appoint an Advocate Commissioner ex parte whenever
local investigation is necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute.
17. In V.A. Innova Alloy Steel Tech Pvt. Ltd. ( supra ), this Court
held that when both parties claim that their properties are situated in
two different survey numbers, and in such case, the intention of the
Court below in appointing the advocate commissioner is to demarcate
the two different survey numbers, but not to ascertain or cause any
enquiry as to who is in possession of which property. The
Commissioner could inspect the property with the assistance of the
Tahsildar/Mandal Surveyor and village map, particularly when there
was an attempt to alter the physical features of the property. The High
Court expressly recognised that an Advocate Commissioner can be
appointed even in a suit for perpetual injunction where a genuine
boundary dispute requires demarcation and further held that
appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to collect evidence or
establish the possession of either party is not permissible under law.
18. The above said judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for
the respondent/defendant are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case on the ground that there is a specific case of

14
the plaintiffs that they have correctly stated the boundaries of the suit
schedule properties. Whether the boundaries mentioned in the suit
schedule properties are correct or not, the party will adduce necessary
evidence. However, the defendant, even before the commencement of
trial, filed application seeking appointment of an Advocate
Commissioner at the threshold for comprehensive relief and it would
amount to gathering evidence.
19. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial
Court, without recording any specific reason as to why the appointment
of advocate commissioner is required for adjudication of the dispute at
threshold, only extracted the averments of the affidavit and counter in
I.A.No.534 of 2025 as well as the judgments relied upon by the parties,
allowed the application as prayed for, which is not permitted under law.
In the event if the Court came to conclusion that to resolve the
controversy involved, if the Court is unable to decide the matter basing
on the material evidence on record and if the assistance of the Advocate
Commissioner is required to resolve such controversy involved in the
suit, the Court may appoint the Advocate Commissioner either suo-
motu or basing on the application filed by either of the parties and that
stage is not yet reached in the present case. Hence, this Court is of the
considered view that the application filed by the defendant for
appointment of advocate commissioner for identification of the suit
lands in Sy.Nos.273/4, 275/1 and 275/4 and to note down physical

15
features of suit land with the assistance of Assistant Director of Survey
and Land Records, Mahabubabad, at this stage, amounts to gathering
of evidence.
20. For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions, the
impugned order dated 16.06.2026 passed by the learned trial Court in
I.A.No.534 of 2025 in O.S.No.131 of 2025, is liable to be set aside and
accordingly, set aside.
21. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. However, this
order will not preclude the learned trial Court from appointing a
Commissioner/Advocate Commissioner either suo motu or at the
instance of either of the parties, if, upon consideration of the evidence
adduced by the parties, the learned trial Court finds that it is unable to
effectively decide the matter without the assistance of an
Commissioner/Advocate Commissioner and that such appointment is
necessary for resolving the dispute. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous application pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 04.11.2026
L.R. Copy to be marked
mar