Order XXVI Rule 9 and under Section 151 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. = to note down the physical features of the petition schedule property and also to note down whether there exists rasta or road with the help of Municipal Surveyor. = Trail court dismissed on the Grounds thatHaving regard to the fact that the petitioner purchased the property from the defendant in O.S.No. 209 of 2009 on 6.8.2012, i.e., pending the said suit, the Court below noted that it was not necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner having regard to the decree passed in the subject suit. It was also noticed that in the pending suit, the defendant was disputing the title and possession of the petitioner-plaintiff from the time of filing his written statement but the petitioner has not sought for the relief of declaration of title in the suit. The Court also noticed that in O.S.No. 209 of 2009, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner’s report was also discussed in detail. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, the Court below was not inclined to grant relief as sought for and the I.A was dismissed. - Their Lordship confirmed the lower court order and dismissed the revision


CRP 479 / 2016
CRPSR 2352 / 2016CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
A RAMESESHAIAH, ANANTAPURAMU DIST  VSM CHANDRASEKHAR, ANANTAPURAMU DIST

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ****
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 479 OF 2016
Between: A. Ramaseshaiah S/o A. Venkataramanappa ….Petitioner A n d M Chandrasekhar S/o M. Nagappa ….Respondent
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 03.02.2016
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 479 OF 2016
ORDER:
Petitioner is the plaintiff in I.A.No. 327 of 2015 in O.S.No. 92 of 2014 on the file of III Additional District Judge (FTC), Anantapuram. I.A. was filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 and under Section 151 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.
This I.A was considered along with I.A.No. 689 of 2015 in O.S.No. 92 of 2012.
The contention of the petitioner is that the Advocate Commissioner should be appointed to note down the physical features of the petition schedule property and also to note down whether there exists rasta or road with the help of Municipal Surveyor. 
Having regard to the fact that the petitioner purchased the property from the defendant in O.S.No. 209 of 2009 on 6.8.2012, i.e., pending the said suit, the Court below noted that it was not necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner having regard to the decree passed in the subject suit. It was also noticed that in the pending suit, the defendant was disputing the title and possession of the petitioner-plaintiff from the time of filing his written statement but the petitioner has not sought for the relief of declaration of title in the suit. 
The Court also noticed that in O.S.No. 209 of 2009, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner’s report was also discussed in detail. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, the Court below was not inclined to grant relief as sought for and the I.A was dismissed. I do not see any error in the decision of the Court below warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 03.2.2016 KA

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