1. Heard Sri N. Nitesh, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Smt. V. Hima Bindu, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.337 of 2023 before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur against three private defendants and three official defendants, for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants 1 to 3 therein from interfering with the suit schedule property consisting of Ac.4.13 cents in Sy.No.197-3 and Ac.0.06 cents in Sy.No.197-5B of Thirumandyam Village, Vadamalapet Mandal, Tirupati.

3. The case of the petitioner was that, the aforesaid suit schedule property had been purchased by him, by way of a registered deed of sale dated 06.09.2006, registered as document No.1798 of 2006 and that he was in possession of the suit schedule property due to which, the petitioner had also been issued electronic pass book for the said land.

4. The defendants 1 to 3, who are arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 herein, had opposed the suit. The case of the defendants was that they are part of a joint family and their late uncle had acted as the manager of the joint family during his life time. The respondents 1 to 3 contend that their late uncle, as manager of the joint family, had purchased two extents of land under registered deeds of sale dated 19.04.1961. In one deed of sale, the manager of the joint family had purchased Ac.0.21 cents of land in Sy.No.200/1 of the village which was registered as document No.885 of 1961. This deed of sale was executed by one Sri V. Siva Ramayya. Under the second deed of sale, the late manager of the joint family had purchased Ac.0.21 cents of land in Sy.No.197/3 from one Sri V. Rama Krishnaiah and the said deed of sale was registered as document No.883/1961. However, a mistake had taken place in the mention of the survey in which the land was situated. Due to this mistake, the deed of sale recorded the survey as 200/1 instead of 197/3.

5. The defendants 1 to 3 also took the plea that the deed of sale relied upon by the petitioner herein did not convey any title to the petitioner as the vendors of the petitioner themselves do not have any title. The respondents 1 to 3 further contended that the petitioner taking advantage of this lacuna had got the land belonging to the respondents 1 to 3 transferred in his name through other persons and had commenced construction of a compound wall to incorporate the land belonging to the respondents 1 to 3 within his land holding.

6. The respondents 1 to 3 on the basis of the contention that the petitioner herein was seeking to build a compound wall around the land belonging to the respondents 1 to 3, had moved I.A.No.74 of 2024, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, to note down the physical features of the land especially on the question of whether there is a wall enclosing the land of the respondents 1 to 3 along with other lands being claimed by the petitioner.

7. The petitioner had opposed the said application on the twin grounds that the application is premature and that an application is an attempt to collect evidence rather than a proper application for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.

8. The trial Court after considering both contentions, had allowed the application, by way of an order dated 19.02.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

9. Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions has relied upon the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Gangavarapu Hanumantha Rao @ Anjaneyulu vs. Battigiri Ramulu and Others 2008 (1) ALD 466 and the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 12.01.2024 in C.R.P.45 of 2024.

10. Smt. V. Hima Bindu, learned counsel appearing for Sri V. Venkata Subbaiah, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Telangana in the case of Enugu Sanjeev Reddy vs. M.A. Masood 2020 (2) ALD 275 (TS).

11. The rival pleadings in the case show that one of the issues that will arise is whether document No.883 of 1961 relates to the sale of land admeasuring Ac.0.21 cents in Sy.No.200/1 or in Sy.No.197/3. That is the question that would be answered by the trial Court after due trial. For the time being, the contention of the petitioner that he is building a wall around his own land and the rival contention of the respondent 1 to 3 that the petitioner is building a compound wall around the land which is belonging to and which is in the occupation of the respondents 1 to 3 in Sy.No.197/3 would have to be looked into. For the present, the prayer in the application moved by the respondents 1 to 3 is whether there is a wall encompassing the entire land or whether there is any land still outside any wall that is being constructed by the petitioner herein.

12. The question of extent of the wall at this point of time can only be determined by an Advocate Commissioner visiting the site and ascertaining whether there is any such wall constructed and if such a wall has been constructed whether the land claimed by the respondents 1 to 3 has been enclosed within the compound wall. The only way for such dispute to be resolved is an inspection of the site at this point of time. This would necessitate the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.

13. The Judgment of the learned Single Judge of the combined High Court reported in Gangavarapu Hanumantha Rao @ Anjaneyulu vs. Battigiri Ramulu and Others deals with a question of whether an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed during the initial stage of the suit itself. The learned Single Judge had taken the view that early appointment of an Advocate Commissioner at the very inception of the suit is not correct as it may amount to collection of evidence. This principle would not be applicable in the present case as the question that needs to be looked into by the Court is whether there is a wall in existence today and whether that wall encompasses the land in question. In such circumstances, the application cannot be treated as premature.

14. On the question of whether appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for this purpose would amount to collection of evidence, I am in respectful agreement that paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana reported in 2020 (2) ALD 275 (TS), which read as follows:

"The object of local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. is to collect evidence at the instance of the party who relies on the same and which evidence cannot be taken in Court but could be taken only from its peculiar nature on the spot. Such evidence will elucidate a point which may otherwise leave any doubt or ambiguity in record.

In the instance case, the location of the plot claimed by the plaintiff, whether it is in Survey No.38/1 or 43/B can only be ascertained through an Advocate-Commissioner as such evidence is available only on the spot."

15. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the trial Court does not require any interference and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.