Telangana HC Sets Aside Pre-Trial Order For Land Identification In Injunction Suit, Saying It Would Gather Evidence

The plaintiffs brought a suit for perpetual injunction concerning three items of property.

After filing his written statement, the defendant applied under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for an Advocate Commissioner, assisted by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, to identify the suit lands in Sy.Nos.273/4, 275/1 and 275/4 and note their physical features.

The trial Court allowed the application before trial; the plaintiffs challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC permits a commission for local investigation where the Court considers it requisite or proper to elucidate a matter in dispute.

In an injunction suit, a Commissioner may be appointed even before trial to note physical features; however, the Commissioner cannot be used to gather evidence or establish a party’s case.

The plaintiff bears the initial burden of proving the case, including the identity of the property; where ambiguity about identity remains after the parties adduce evidence, the Court may appoint a Commissioner.

The Court considered A. Gopal Reddy v. R. Subramanyam Reddy, 2013 (4) ALD 347; Arvind Kumar Agarwal v. Legend Estates (P) Ltd., 2015 (2) ALD 206; and this Court’s decisions in M. Rajshekhar Reddy and Reddyshetty Srihari on the limits of appointing a Commissioner at the threshold.

The application sought more than a record of visible physical features: it also sought identification of the lands within specified survey numbers through the assistance of a survey authority.

The parties disputed the correctness of the boundaries, and the plaintiffs maintained that they were correctly stated. The Court held that the parties should adduce evidence on that dispute and that, at this pre-trial stage, the requested identification would amount to gathering evidence.

Although a Commissioner may be appointed early to note physical features, the trial Court had not given specific reasons why a commission was necessary to resolve the dispute at that point; it had largely reproduced the parties’ pleadings and cited authorities.

The respondent’s authorities concerning genuine boundary or identification disputes did not justify the particular order made before the evidence had been adduced.

It allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 16 June 2026 in I.A.No.534 of 2025.

The trial Court remains free to appoint a Commissioner, on its own motion or on a party’s application, if—after considering the evidence—it finds such assistance necessary to decide the dispute effectively. No order as to costs.