Advocate-Commissioner to gather evidence not maintainable = it is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the respondents have occupied a part of the public street and raised constructions. Unless the petitioner has relevant evidence in his custody, he is not expected to file the suit. Being the plaintiff, the initial burden is on the petitioner to prove the plaint averments by adducing cogent oral and documentary evidence. Even though Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC envisages appointment of a Commissioner for elucidation of the matters in dispute, ordinarily, the Commissioner is appointed, where the Court is of the opinion that the available evidence is not enough to arrive at proper and correct conclusion for effectual adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit. Though the petitioner has filed his chief-examination affidavit in November, 2010, he has not even started adducing his evidence. Therefore, on the facts of this case, I am in agreement with the observation of the Court below that the petitioner has filed the application for appointment of a Commissioner to gather evidence instead of discharging his burden by adducing independent evidence.


The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy


Civil Revision Petition No. 501 of 2013

Date: 21-02-2013

Between:

Papasani Sankara Reddy                                             .. Petitioner

And

Kandula Hanumantha Reddy & 6 others                      .. Respondents












Counsel for the petitioner         :  Sri V.V. Satish for
    Sri O. Manohar Reddy

Counsel for the respondents     :  ---


















The Court made the following:



ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated             02-11-2012, in I.A. No.213 of 2012 in O.S. No.58 of 2007 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal. 

The petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for declaration of his right to use the main street abutting the plaint schedule property on the southern side without any let or hindrance, and for a mandatory injunction to direct the respondents/defendants to remove the respective houses constructed by them on the main street on the southern side of the plaint schedule property and not to cause any obstruction to him from using the main street. He has filed I.A. No.213 of 2012 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property, measure the same and demarcate the boundaries with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor and to locate the extent of encroachment by the respondents on the southern side of the suit schedule property.  The respondents opposed the said application.  The Court below upon considering the respective pleas, dismissed the application.
The reasoning of the Court below in dismissing the application is mainly two fold, namely, that the application filed by the petitioner is belated; and that by seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner, the petitioner is trying to gather evidence.
 As noted hereinabove, it is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the respondents have occupied a part of the public street and raised constructions.  Unless the petitioner has relevant evidence in his custody, he is not expected to file the suit.  Being the plaintiff, the initial burden is on the petitioner to prove the plaint averments by adducing cogent oral and documentary evidence. Even though Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC envisages appointment of a Commissioner for elucidation of the matters in dispute, ordinarily, the Commissioner is appointed, where the Court is of the opinion that the available evidence is not enough to arrive at proper and correct conclusion for effectual adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit.  Though the petitioner has filed his chief-examination affidavit in November, 2010, he has not even started adducing his evidence.  Therefore, on the facts of this case, I am in agreement with the observation of the Court below that the petitioner has filed the application for appointment of a Commissioner to gather evidence instead of discharging his burden by adducing independent evidence. 
For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any error, jurisdictional or otherwise, for interference with the order of the lower Court.  The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the revision petition, C.R.P.M.P. No.642 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
                                                              _____________________

                                                   C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

February 21, 2013.
Mgr/AM

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515