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 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^stdefendant 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 1^st 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 1^st 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

13^th February, 2013

Lrkm