Anishetty Vijaya Kumar v. Bhukya Kalawathy @ Kalamma
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
132521
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1204 OF 2026 Petition under Article 227 of lhe constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 2210112026 Passed in 1.A.No.277 ot 2024 in O.S. No.3B of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Jangaon. Between:
Anishetty Vijaya Kumar, S/o. Late Kistaiah, aged 58 years, Occ. Govt. Employee, R/o. H. No. 3-12-59, Durga Colony, Kumar Pally, Hanumakonda District.
... Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff AND
1. Bhukya Kalawathy @ Kalamma, W/o. Sundar, aged 35 years, / Rt/o. Veerareddy Thanda, H/o. Ashwaraopalle Shivar, Komalla Village, Raghunath Pally Mandal, Jangaon District
2. Bhukya Sundar, S/o. Bheema, aged 40 years, / R/o. Veerareddy Thanda, H/o. Ashwaraopalle Shivar. Komalla Village, Raghunath Pally Mandal, Jangaon District
...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings of the suit, i.e., O.S.No.3B of 2021, on the file of The Principal Districts Judge, Jangaon, pending disposal of the present C.R.P. Counsel forthe Petitioner: Sri M Madhava Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Pingali Rameshwar Rao The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Civil Revi ion Petition No.12O 4 ot 2026 Dated: 23.06.2026 Between Anishetty Vijaya Kumar .... Petitioner AND Bhukya Kalawathy @ Kalamma and another Respondents OIDER:
Heard Sri M. Madhava Reddy, tearned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri pingali Rameshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2, The oresent Civil Revision Petition is oreferred seeki nq the oraver as u nder:
"...to call for the records and set aside the order dated 22.07.2026 passed in LA. No.277 of 2024 ir O.S. No.38 of 2021 on the file of the principal District ludge, -Jangaon, consequently direct the learned principal District ludge, Jangaon to appoint the AdvocateCommissioner by allowing the C.R.p. and pass...,,.
- SN, J cRP r204 2026 PERIJSED T E RECORD it rinth nt R vtsro P itio is the oetitioner in I.A. No.277 of 2024 in O.S. No. 8of 202L filed see ino the oraver as under.
"...to order for appointment of AdvocateCommissioner to conduct survey in land in Sy. No' 373/@/3, 3731@/4 and 373/e/5 of Komalla Village of Raghunathpalli Mandal, Jangaon District, with the help of surveyor in the interest of justice". 4.
The said petition is filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. seeking appointment of AdvocateCommissioner for the purpose of conducting survey and measurements in respect of Iand in Sy. No. 373/@13, 3731@/4 and 3731co15 of Komalla Village of Raghunathpalti Mandal and the same had been rejected by the Iearned Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon observing at Para Nos.13 and 14 as under:
"13. Firstly, the plaintitfs have to show location of the lands purchased by their son Prasanth Kumar and their daughter Kavya Sri under their respective registered sale deeds and they should deplct the land sold by
J sN..) cRP 1201 2026 Prasantyh Kumar to Velugu Thulasi and the land sold by their daughter Kavya Sri to Chintha Laxman. Without giving such material, the plaintiff cannot fish out for evidence by seeking appointment of AdvocateCommissioner to localize their land. L4.
Hence, I hold that there are no merits in the petition and the petition is to be dismissed. Hcwever, it is observed that the petitioner on filing all the record and by showing the location of the land as observed in the petition can renew their claim for localization of their land vrs-a-vis the Sy. No. 373les/3/8, 373/eD/4/B and 373/o/5/B claimed by them".
5.
In view of the clear observations at para Nos.l3 and 14 of the order dated 22.01.2026 in I.A. No.277 of 2024 in O.S. No.38 of 2O2L passed by the principat District Judge, Jangaon (referred to and extracted above), this Court opines that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 22.Ot.2O26 in l.A. No.277 of 2024 in O.S. No.38 of 2O2t passed by the Principal District Judge, Jangaon which is assailed in the present C.R.P. It is clearly observed in the order impugned dated 22.01.2026 passed in I.a. No.277 ol 2024 in O.S. No. 38 of 2O21 on the file of the principal District Judge, Jangaon that the petitioner on filing all
- SN. ] cRP r204 2026 the record and by showing the location of the land can renew petitaoner's claim for localization of petitioner's land and hence petitioner can approach the Court with a proper application duly filing all the relevant material documents in support of petitioner's case'
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to renew petitioner's claim by filing alt the relevant material on record as observed by the Court below at Para Nos'13 and 14 of the impugned order dated 22'01-'2026 in I'A' No.277 ot 2024 in O.S. No'38 of 2O21 passed by the Principal District Judge, Jangaon referred to and extracted above). However, there shall no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous a PPlications, closed.
if any, shall stand SD/.K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER To,
1. The Principal District Judge, Jangaon
2. One CC to SRl. M MADHAVA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to SRl. PINGALI RAMESHWAR RAO' Advocate IOPUCI
4. Two CD CoPies ADK,iBA
HIGH COURT DATED: 2310612026 j r*il r-l
ORDER
GRP.No.1204 of 2026 C) 0 3 JUt 2020 () l< * OES, 'r.'.l',J DISPOSING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS f \*\:r