Commission Report Without Measurement Defeats Its Purpose — Andhra Pradesh High Court Remands Case Over Advocate-Commissioner’s Incomplete Execution of Warrant

“Trial Court failed to examine why its own warrant wasn't fully executed” — High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside a trial court order that had dismissed the petitioners’ plea for re-entrustment of a warrant to the Advocate-Commissioner to conduct physical measurement of disputed property. The High Court held that the trial court acted in error by not conducting an inquiry into the Commissioner's failure to perform the core duty — property measurement — and instead blindly accepted an incomplete report.

Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy remanded the matter back to the trial court for a proper inquiry, holding that: “Without adjudicating why the Advocate-Commissioner did not execute the warrant as directed, the dismissal of the application is unsustainable in law.”

“When Measurement Was the Objective, Sketch Alone Won’t Suffice” — Petitioners Sought What the Warrant Itself Demanded

The original suit (O.S. No. 64 of 2023) before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, was filed by the respondent (plaintiff) seeking declaration, possession, removal of sheds and encroachments, injunctions against interference, and even a restraint on municipal construction approvals. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff sought appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, which was granted on 10.05.2023.

However, the Advocate-Commissioner, appointed to measure the property, did not perform the measurement, citing lack of cooperation from the defendants and absence of direction to take help of a surveyor. Instead, he submitted only physical features, photographs, and a rough sketch.

The petitioners (defendants) had specifically requested on the spot that measurement be done with the assistance of a surveyor, which was not honoured. They later filed I.A. No. 25 of 2024, seeking re-entrustment of the warrant to the same Commissioner, so he could now execute it properly with surveyor help.

“Once the Court Orders Measurement, It Must Ensure Its Fulfillment” — High Court Says Trial Court Abandoned Its Own Directions

The trial court rejected the application for re-entrustment, stating that since the defendants had already filed objections to the Commissioner’s report, they could now cross-examine him during trial, and thus no re-visit was necessary.

The High Court firmly disagreed:

“The very object of appointing the Advocate-Commissioner was to measure the property. If that was not done, the trial court ought to have inquired into the reasons why.”

The Court criticised the trial court for mechanically disposing of the application without any inquiry into the execution failure, and further held:

“The grievance of the petitioners is not trivial — they are seeking what was originally directed by the trial court itself.”

“Re-Entrustment to Same Commissioner is Permissible if Work Remains Incomplete” — Court Applies Precedent from Kushal Rao v. Shyam Rao

Relying on a key judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kushal Rao v. Shyam Rao, 1997 (1) ALT 93, the Court clarified:

“If a portion of the commission work was not fulfilled, the same Advocate-Commissioner may be directed to complete it with further material and cooperation of parties.”

The Court also reiterated that appointing a second Commissioner is not allowed unless the first report is found defective or the Court is dissatisfied — which was not the case here. Instead, the same Commissioner may complete the originally assigned task.

“The Trial Court did not even find the Commissioner's report defective. It simply failed to ask why the core part of the warrant — measurement — was not carried out.”

“Warrant Must Be Executed in Spirit, Not Just in Form” — High Court Directs Trial Court to Inquire Within Four Weeks

Finding the entire process flawed, the High Court held:

“The Trial Court did not conduct any inquiry as to why the learned Advocate-Commissioner did not execute the warrant as per the terms stipulated.”

Accordingly, it set aside the order dated 29.07.2024 passed in I.A. No. 25 of 2024, and remanded the matter back to the trial court with a clear direction:

“Conduct an inquiry into the non-execution of warrant terms by the Advocate-Commissioner, after hearing all stakeholders, and decide whether the warrant should be re-entrusted.”

The Court also directed that the inquiry be concluded within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.

This judgment sends a clear message that courts must ensure that commission proceedings serve their intended purpose. A Commissioner’s report cannot be reduced to mere sketches and photos when actual measurement is what was sought and ordered.

“Justice lies not in technical compliance, but in substantive execution of what the court mandates,” the High Court reaffirmed.

By demanding accountability and remanding for fresh inquiry, the Court has reinstated procedural fairness and judicial discipline in interlocutory proceedings that often decide the fate of property disputes.

Date of Decision: 3rd September 2025