Advocate Commissioner Can Demarcate Boundaries Even In Injunction Suits: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reinforced the judicial power to appoint Advocate Commissioners for boundary demarcation, ruling that such appointments do not constitute 'collection of evidence' but are essential for effective adjudication in property disputes. This decision clarifies that even in suits for permanent injunction, the court can deploy local commissions to resolve factual discrepancies between suit schedules and ground realities.

Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, sitting as a single bench, heard the revision petition challenging a trial court's order that allowed the appointment of a commissioner to note physical features and boundaries. The court emphasized that localizing property through technical assistance is a valid exercise of judicial discretion to clear the 'fog' of controversy.

Court Observations and Directions

The High Court scrutinized the petitioner’s contention that boundaries must only be proved through oral and documentary evidence. The Court rejected this, noting that when boundaries are disputed, a physical report provides a clear picture necessary for the court's final decision.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In view of the above, the ultimate conclusion reached by the learned trial Judge in appointing the Advocate Commissioner for localizing the suit schedule property and the boundaries of the suit schedule with the help of mandal surveyor is justified and it does not require any interference of this Court."

The Court has the following directions:
"The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed."

Background

The matter arose from a suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner (plaintiff). The respondents (defendants) filed an interlocutory application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. They argued that the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule differed from those actually available on the ground and requested a report based on revenue records and the assistance of revenue officials.

The petitioner resisted this, claiming it was a maneuver to collect evidence which should instead be proved through trial. The trial court at Amadalavalasa allowed the appointment, leading to this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In upholding the trial court's order, the High Court relied on M.L. Srinivas Rao v. J. Kurien and Pandiri Pedda Saidaiah and others v. Thirunagairi Padmavathi, which established that commissioners can fix boundaries. Furthermore, the court cited the Supreme Court decision in Haryana Wakf Board v. Shanti Sarup and others ( "(2008) 8 SCC 671": 2008 CaseBase(SC) 1740) to affirm that demarcation by a commissioner is a recognized procedural step in such disputes.

Case Details:
Case No.: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2308/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:41112
Case Title: Jogi Savitri V. Chinchili Kameswara Rao And Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): SRINIVAS AMBATI
For the Respondent(s): CHINNALA PRAVEEN

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 17607