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

PETITIONER RESPONDENT JUTURI SREENIVASULU   VS IMTIAZ AND 2 OTHERS PET.ADV. : NAGI REDDY RESP.ADV. :  SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227 DISTRICT:  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