Advocate Commissioner would be nothing short of collection of evidence not maintainable = Appointment of a Commissioner at this stage to note down the physical features of the 1st petitioner’s land is clearly a case of collection of evidence, which cannot be permitted; all the more so, at a stage when the suit is ripe for trial.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH::
AT HYDERABAD

                                                                                       

            WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,

TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

 

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

C.R.P. No.294 of 2013

 

Between:

 

Kovvuru Jayachandra Reddy

and others

...  Petitioners

             

          And

 

 

Vani I.T.I Technical Educational Society,

Rep. by its President Daripalli Anantharamulu

and another

 

…  Respondents

 










HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

C.R.P.No.294 of 2013

ORDER:   

The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 in the suit O.S.No.187 of 2012, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam.  They filed I.A.No.739 of 2012 in the said suit to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the land belonging to the 1st petitioner herein.  By order dated 18.10.2012, the trial Court dismissed the said I.A.  Aggrieved, they filed this revision.

2.       The suit, O.S.No.187 of 2012, was filed by the 1st respondent/ plaintiff for a perpetual injunction.   The plaintiff claimed to be the owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.2.11 gts i.e., Ac.0-06 gts in Sy.No.83/A2, Ac.0-07 gts in Sy.No.84/A2, Ac.1-05 gts in Sy.No.105/AA, Ac.0-33 gts in Sy.No.106/AA of Pallegudem revenue village, Yedulapuram Gram Panchayat, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District.  The 1stdefendant filed a written statement stating, inter alia, that he was the owner and possessor of an extent of
Ac.1-07¾  gts  i.e., Ac.0-03¼ gts in Sy.No.83/A1, Ac.0-03 gts in Sy.No.84/A1, Ac.0-12½  gts in Sy.No.105/A1, Ac.0-17½ gts in Sy.No.106/A and Ac.0-11½  gts in Sy.No.96, which is a single compact block in the same village.  
 The matter is coming up for trial.   At that stage, the petitioners filed the present application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the land belonging to the 1st petitioner herein.   The trial Court, upon considering the matter, held that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner would be nothing short of collection of evidence.   Holding so, the trial Court dismissed the I.A.

3.       Appointment of a Commissioner at this stage to note down the physical features of the 1st petitioner’s land is clearly a case of collection of evidence, which cannot be permitted; all the more so, at a stage when the suit is ripe for trial.  This Court therefore finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the I.A.

4.       The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.  C.R.P.M.P.No.400 of 2013 shall stand dismissed in consequence.  No costs.

_________________

SANJAY KUMAR, J


13th February, 2013

Lrkm


 

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.

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

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.