Order 26 Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, for a second time=whether the petitioners/defendants can seek a second commission. It is a settled proposition of law that mechanical appointment of more than one commission should not be resorted to merely because the applicant would bear the costs, as such indiscriminate appointment of multiple commissions would create an unhealthy practice and lead to parties making such applications successively till they secure reports to their liking. M.RAMESH BABU V/s. M.SREEDHAR [1] . Therein, a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with Order 26 Rule 10A CPC, observed that there is no bar to a second commission being appointed without the earlier commission’s report being set aside but it would not be desirable to do so without valid reasons. The Bench was of the opinion that there should be special circumstances to resort to such a step and reasons must be recorded therefor. This Court is of the considered opinion that the above decision does not further the case of the petitioners/defendants-Having raised objections to the first commission’s report, it is not open to the petitioners/defendants to straight away seek appointment of a second commission without allowing the trial Court an opportunity to apply its mind to the first commission’s report. The order under revision demonstrates that the trial Court was also of the same opinion. This Court therefore finds no reason to interfere with the order under revision.

 
CRP 327 / 2016
CRPSR 1410 / 2016CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
UPPULURI SUBBARAO & ANOTHER  VSUPPULURI NAGESWARARAO
PET.ADV. : SUBBA REDDYRESP.ADV. : 


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.327 OF 2016
O R D E R
This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of the order dated 14.12.2015 passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, in I.A.No.240 of 2015 in O.S.No.131 of 2009. The petitioners are the defendants in the said suit. They filed the subject I.A. under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, for a second time, to carry out measurements with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor and to observe the physical features of the suit property, prepare a plan and file a report. By the order under revision, the trial Court dismissed the application.
Perusal of the order passed by the trial Court reflects that the Advocate Commissioner, appointed in the first instance, to make a local inspection and note the physical features of the suit schedule property, filed his report along with a plan and the petitioners/defendants filed objections thereto. Taking note of the said aspect, the trial Court opined that the petitioners/defendants would be at liberty to cross-examine the said Advocate Commissioner on the objections raised by them and bring out the real facts. Holding so, the trial Court dismissed the subject application.
Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants, pointed out that as many as 11 objections had been raised against the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner. 
Learned counsel would further point out that the dispute between the parties was primarily in relation to a passage but the Commissioner had failed to take measurements of the same. It is no doubt true that the suit claim of the respondent/ plaintiff was for a permanent injunction not only in relation to the suit schedule site but also the passage shown in the plaint plan as ABCD. However, it is for the respondent/plaintiff to prove his case before the trial Court. In furtherance of this endeavour, the respondent/plaintiff had filed the first application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and the consequent report to which the petitioners/defendants had already filed their objections. Admittedly, these objections are yet to be considered. As of now, it cannot be said that the trial Court has found the said report unsatisfactory.
At such a stage, the question is whether the petitioners/defendants can seek a second commission. It is a settled proposition of law that mechanical appointment of more than one commission should not be resorted to merely because the applicant would bear the costs, as such indiscriminate appointment of multiple commissions would create an unhealthy practice and lead to parties making such applications successively till they secure reports to their liking. Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel, placed reliance on M.RAMESH BABU V/s. M.SREEDHAR [1] . Therein, a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with Order 26 Rule 10A CPC, observed that there is no bar to a second commission being appointed without the earlier commission’s report being set aside but it would not be desirable to do so without valid reasons. The Bench was of the opinion that there should be special circumstances to resort to such a step and reasons must be recorded therefor. This Court is of the considered opinion that the above decision does not further the case of the petitioners/defendants. A report of an Advocate Commissioner, in any event, is not binding on the Court. It is for the Court to strive to ascertain the truth and to take recourse to all measures deemed appropriate to reach this goal. In the event the trial Court, upon considering the objections raised by the petitioners/defendants, finds itself dissatisfied with the report of the first commission, it can always appoint a second commission. Having raised objections to the first commission’s report, it is not open to the petitioners/defendants to straight away seek appointment of a second commission without allowing the trial Court an opportunity to apply its mind to the first commission’s report. The order under revision demonstrates that the trial Court was also of the same opinion. This Court therefore finds no reason to interfere with the order under revision. The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall also stand dismissed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs. ______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 22 nd MARCH, 2016 Svv [1] 2009(5) ALD 187

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.