Dismissed

Regala Narsa Reddy and Another v. Gosa Narasimha Rao and 3 Others

Telangana HC14 Oct 2025CRP/6724/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the lower court's rejection of an application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The petitioner argued that physical verification of a village path was needed. The High Court held the trial court correctly noted that the path's existence must be proved via evidence and appointing a commissioner would be fishing for evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was not ordered, and the revision petition was dismissed.

Regala Narsa Reddy and Another Vs Gosa… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁴³ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA}

¶3

TUESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF^OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NARSINGRAO NANDIKONDA}

¶6

CIVIL RE ION PETITION NO: 6724 OF 2o18

¶7

Petition under Afticle 227 of the Constitution^{of lndia, praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^grounds filed^{herein,the High Court may be pleased} to present this Memorandum of Civil^{Revision Petition againstOrder of} dismissing the appointment of advocate^{commissioner petition l.A.No.25412017} in O.S. No. 6212017, on the file of the^{Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Sathupally,} Khammam District, Telangana State, dated^31-08-2018.

¶8

Between:

¶9

REGALA NARSA REDDY, S/o. Ranga^{Reddy, Age 62 years,Occ-} Agriculture, R/o. Kallurugudem Village,^{Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District,} Telangana State.

¶10

Regala Rusha Vathi,, S/o.^{Narsa Reddy,.Age55 years, Occ-Housewife,R/o.} Kailurugudem Mllage, Vemsoor^{Mandai, Khhmmam District, Telangana State}

¶11

...PETITIONER(SYPLAI^NTIFFS

¶12

AND

¶13

GOSA NARASIMHA RAO, S/o.^{Ramulu, Age 50 years, Occ- Agriculture,R/o.} Kallurugudem Village, Vemsoor^{Mandal, Khammam District, TelanganaState.}

¶14

Velisala Siddaiah,, S/o. Ramaiah,^{Age 60 years, Occ- Agriculture'R/o.} Kallurugudem Village, Vemsoor^{Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana State.}

¶15

Mamilla Lakshmaiah,, S/o.^{Tirupathaiah,Age 50 years,Occ- Agriculture,-Rl/o.} Kallurugudem Villag6, Vemsooi^{Mandal, Khammbm District, TelanganaState.}

¶16

Pouapogula Venkanna,, S/o.^{Pichaiah, Age 45 years,Occ-Agriculture,R/o.} Kalluiug-udem Village, Vemsoor^{Mandal, KhammamDstrict' Telangana}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶18

tA NO: 1 OF 201E

¶19

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 to direct the respondents not to disturb the physical futures of suit Schedu{e property in 0.S. No, 6212017, on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Sathupally, Khammam District, Tetangana State and existence of village rastha with 45 yards of length and 5 yards width, which leads from R & B road to Petitioners/Plaintiffs land through government, pending disposal of C.R.P. before this Hon'ble court.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRl. Dr CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CML REVISION PEIITION No.6724 of 2018

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 31.08.2018 dismissing the application for appointment of Advocate Comrnissioner uid.e I.A.No.254 of 2Ol7 passed m O.S.No.62 of 2Ol7 on the fiIe of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Sathupally, Khammam District.

¶26

Heard Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitionersr/plaintiffs. Though, notice sent to the respondents returned with an endorsement "Not Yet Returned" and hence notice against ttre respondents is dispensed with.

¶27

The present civil revision petition is frled against the dismissal order of the petition which was filed by the petitioners under Order 26, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C for appointment of Advocate Comrnissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule propert5r and existence of village rastha with 45 yards of length and 5 yards which leads from R & 8".* qoad to petitioners/plaintiffs land through

¶28

¶29

NNR) CRP. No.6724 of 2O1t

¶30

Government larlri. The learned Jucige after going into entire merits of the case and considering the counter frled by the defendants has dismissed the said petition on the ground that the petitioners cannot be permitted to hsh out the evidence and it amounts to only fishing of the evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is frled.

¶31

The petitioners/plaintiffs liled case against the respondents/defendants seeking rerief of perpetual injunction restraining ttre respondents/defendants from enjo5rment of ttre suit schedule property. The said suit schedule propert5r is al agricultural land and a_lso includes 45 yards length and 5 yards width viltage rastha which is on the western side of the R & B road which is being in existence since more than 50 years arrd being used by the village people and it is also not in dispute with regard to the propertSz of the petitioner. The main contention of the petitioners that appointment of t.I.e Advocate commissioner is only to see that there is a rastha exists and whether it ha.s been used by the village people since more than 50 years and it is also contention of the petitioners that the said rastha of 45

¶32

¶33

ClP. No.6721 ol mfi

¶34

yards length and 5 yards width village rasttra which is western side of R & B is included and it is the aspect which has to^be decided by the trial Court. FurtJter, the contention of^the petitioners is that an eastern rastha was found by their^grand parents about 5O years ago.

¶35

1 \

¶36

The contention of tJre respondents is^{that a small bridge} was constructed across the Kattukaluva and ttrat t]le^said rastha is situated in burial ground, but not in^{the Government} land as put forth by the petitioners and that rasttla^{means cattle} tract and it does not mean earthern road.^{It isfurther} contended that tl.e learned Judge having^{gone into entire} material came to conclusion that though there^{is no dispute that} earthern road is formed either recently or long^{back, there would} tle no necessit5r to appoint advocate commissioner^{and the} length of tirne of eistence of the said rastha^{is to be proved by} the petitioners by oral and docrrmentarJr evidence^{and further} the learned Judge rightly came to conclusion^{that the petitioners} cannot be permitted to hsh out the evidence^{and lead the} evidence in support of their case.

¶37

¶38

¶39

NNR,I CR.P.No-6724 ol2ola

¶40

¶41

6' A perusal of the materiar availabre on record discroses tfrat the said rastha was existing a'd it is not *re Government land or burial ground as contended by the respective parties and it is being used by the village people for 50 years and the said aspect has to be proved by way of oral and documentar5r erridence and appointment of Advocate commissioner wourd onry arnounts to collection of the evidence and as such this Court do not see any ground to interfere with the hndings given by the learned Judge as such the present civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

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

¶44

SD/. G.JYOTHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

,/TRUE COPY'/

ECTION OFFICER
<br>

To,

The Principal Junior Civil^{Judge' Sathupally'Khammam District'} 2 One CC to^{SRl.Dr CHALLASRINIVASA REDDY Advocate [OPUC]} 3 Two CD CoPies

pk\pslk

HIGH COURT

DATED:14l1Ol2A2S

D!SMISSED

3i IdE S
(
o
(_)
i g itl'r, 2|116
) t
PATC

¶54

cP-Drl2

¶55

CRP.No.6724 ot 2O1B

¶56

5.eP("4 YA. 6ss

Regala Narsa Reddy and Another v. Gosa Narasimha Rao and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Regala Narsa Reddy and Another v. Gosa Narasimha Rao and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajaji Marapattla Vs Sanjeevi Vutchula

Rapolu Vijay Kumar Vs Smt. Rapolu Shamili

M.Ram Chandra Reddy Vs Aasritha Chit Fund Private Limited and 4 Others

Mahender Agarwal Vs a. Narsimha Reddy(Died)

Pulakala Venkanna Vs Vankayala Gandhi

Koppula Murali Rami Reddy Vs Kanamathareddy Venkateswara Reddy