appointment of an Advocate Commissioner = seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for taking measurements of the shop room and also for noting down the physical features of the shop room of the plaintiff/petitioner as well as the shops of the defendants/respondents.= In my opinion, the trial Court has set out valid and justifiable reasons for dismissing the interlocutory application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner belatedly and hence, the order under revision does not call for any interference at my hands. The Court below has rightly concluded the issue that the case set up by the plaintiff/petitioner that the defendants have encroached upon, has got to be established independently. It is obvious that the petitioner/plaintiff is seeking to rope in by way of improvement, a new plea, which is not forming part of the original pleading, for the said purpose, the Commission cannot be taken out.


CRP 1277 / 2013

CRPSR 7178 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
JUTURI SREENIVASULU  VSIMTIAZ AND 2 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : NAGI REDDYRESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  KURNOOL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1277 OF 2013

ORDER:
          This revision is preferred by the plaintiff in the suit, aggrieved by the orders passed on 31.12.2012 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, dismissing I.A.No.2053 of 2012 moved by him seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for taking measurements of the shop room and also for noting down the physical features of the shop room of the plaintiff/petitioner as well as the shops of the defendants/respondents.
          It should be noted that the suit is instituted in the year 2006. It was dismissed for default once on 27.02.2009.  Subsequently it was restored on 29.10.2012.  
The plaintiff has filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination in the Court and the matter is posted for marking of documents and for cross-examination of PW.1.  At that stage, I.A.No.2053 of 2012 was filed by him seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for inspecting the shops of both parties for noting down the physical features of the encroachments made by the defendants as shown in the plaint plan.         
 This application was contested by the respondents. 
It is asserted by the defendants in the suit that, both the parties are enjoying the respective properties in accordance with the recitals contained in the respective sale deeds, since the time of the purchase of the shop room, and if the plaintiff has got any doubt, he should have got the measurements of his shop room verified and recorded prior to purchasing the same, but instead of doing so, he cannot turn around and file this application at a belated stage. 
The Court below has rightly concluded the issue that the case set up by the plaintiff/petitioner that the defendants have encroached upon, has got to be established independently. 
It is obvious that the petitioner/plaintiff is seeking to rope in by way of improvement, a new plea, which is not forming part of the original pleading, for the said purpose, the Commission cannot be taken out.
          In my opinion, the trial Court has set out valid and justifiable reasons for dismissing the interlocutory application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner belatedly and hence, the order under revision does not call for any interference at my hands.
          This civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications if any, shall stand dismissed. No costs.


                    ________________________________
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J
March 28, 2013
sp

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.