1. Aggrieved by the order, dated 22.06.2026, passed in I.A.No.17 of 2025 in O.S.No.16 of 2025 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge at Narayanpet, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. O.S.No.16 of 2025 (old O.S.No.82 of 2019) is filed for perpetual injunction by Smt. Ramalingamma (died), plaintiff therein. It is the specific case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.16 of 2025 (respondent No.1 herein) that originally property to an extent of 200 square yards was assigned to her husband in the year 1994. That ever since date of assignment, they were in peaceful possession. That after the death of her husband, the suit schedule property was mutated in the name of the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) and patta certificate was issued by the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) and later two rooms were constructed and house No.1-7-11/1/4 was allotted.

3. It is further the case of the respondents legal heirs of late Ramalingamma (plaintiff) that the defendant in O.S.No.16 of 2025 i.e., petitioner herein is not concerned with the suit schedule property, that by creating false and fictitious documents wants to occupy the property of the plaintiff. That on 10.07.2019, the defendant attempted to remove the boundary stones and tried to destroy the walls of the house of the respondents herein in order to occupy the suit schedule property. Hence, suit i.e., O.S.No.16 of 2025 was filed.

4. In support of the averments, the original patta certificate dated 13.09.2007, permission granted by the Nagara Panchayath dated 27.10.2004, electricity bills pertaining to the suit schedule property, xerox copy of food security, original receipts and photos were produced.

5. I.A.No.17 of 2025 in O.S.No.16 of 2025 was filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking to appoint advocate Commissioner for noting down the physical features in the suit schedule property. The said I.A. was opposed by the defendant, revision petitioner herein. It is trite to note that the plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and her legal heirs were brought on record and they pursued the suit.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant submitted that I.A.No.17 of 2025 in O.S.No.16 of 2025 is filed only to collect evidence in support of the plaintiff’s case and the plaintiff has to establish her case by adducing oral and documentary evidence and cannot seek an appointment of advocate Commissioner for gathering evidence. It is further submitted that appointment of an advocate Commissioner for gathering of evidence is not appropriate in the eye of law. It is also contended that appointment of an advocate Commissioner at pre trial stage is not permissible under law.

7. Learned counsel invited attention of this Court to order dated 22.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.17 of 2025 in O.S.No.16 of 2025 and submitted that the said order would show that the advocate Commissioner’s appointment is being sought for the purpose of collecting evidence at pre trial stage.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent contended that the appointment of an advocate Commissioner is not for the purpose of collecting evidence as submitted by learned counsel for petitioner. It is pointed out that Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC empowers the Court to appoint a Commissioner for investigation whenever the Court deems it appropriate to adjudicate the matter in dispute.

9. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions.

10. I.A.No.17 of 2025 in O.S.No.16 of 2025 came to be filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC for appointment of an advocate Commissioner. The suit is for perpetual injunction filed by plaintiff (late respondent No.1 herein, pursuing by legal heirs). It was the case of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein that her husband was assigned with a patta of 200 square yards and that they have raised certain structures and have been residing there for quite some time.

11. It is observed from the order that both parties have disputed the nature of the structure over the suit schedule property. This is the observation of the trial Court in its order dated 22.06.2026. This observation indicates that parties before the trial Court have been agitating not only on the existence of the structure but also on the nature of the structure. Therefore, the trial Court invoked the powers under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC.

12. During the course of submissions, it was submitted that the suit is filed in the year 2019 as O.S.No.82 of 2019, later renumbered as O.S.No.16 of 2025. It is the specific contention that there is no specific plea as to when the rooms or the disputed structures were raised. These are the facts which have to be gone into by the trial Court.

13. Having perused the material on record and order of the trial Court, the appointment of an advocate Commissioner in investigating into the suit schedule property is to investigate whether there exist any rooms or any other structures over the suit schedule property, which is/are being disputed by both the parties. It is also contended that the I.A.No.17 of 2025 in O.S.No.16 of 2025 (old O.S.No.82 of 2019) was filed after a lapse of seven years.

14. Having considered the material on record and the submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that a request be made to the trial Court that upon the submission of the Advocate Commissioner’s report within a period of two weeks as directed in the order dated 22.06.2026, the matter be disposed of expeditiously by the trial Court and is requested to do so. Both the parties shall cooperate in getting the suit disposed of as early as possible, as the suit is for perpetual injunction and the matter is pending for 7 long years. Accordingly, a request is made to the trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the suit i.e., O.S.No.16 of 2025. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of learned trial Court and no interference is necessitated.

15. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.