Or.26 rule 9 of CPC - Petition for Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the plaint schedule - suit for mandatory injunction & permanent Injunction - for demolition of illegal construction of shops allegedly made by the defendants in the plaint schedule site- Tiral Court dismissed on the main ground that the plaintiff failed to file any document to show about the disputed measurements and she filed the plaint schedule basing on the boundaries mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 09.10.2006 and she has not filed any document to show the disputed measurements. The Court further observed that the plaintiff could now show prima facie evidence either oral or documentary to show that there was a dispute regarding the remaining extent of 28 feet x 1.50 feet site - Their Lordships of AP High Court held that the suit is at the inceptional stage and the trial has not yet commenced.-this Court is of the considered view that after the trial is completed and if the plaintiff is able to establish that originally she purchased 3 RCC shops in an extent of 28 feet x 12 feet and the constructions made by the defendants fall within any portion of the aforesaid extent purchased by her, she is at liberty to file a fresh application seeking appointment of the Commissioner to note the physical features of the plaint schedule shown in the plaint plan as ABCD marked portion and to make measurements and note down the boundaries etc, in which case the trial Court shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order.

Or.26 rule 9 of CPC - Petition for Advocate  Commissioner to note the physical features of the plaint schedule - suit for mandatory injunction & permanent Injunction - for demolition of illegal construction of shops allegedly made by the defendants in the plaint schedule site- Tiral Court dismissed on the main ground that the plaintiff failed to file any document to show about the disputed measurements and she filed the plaint schedule basing on the boundaries mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 09.10.2006 and she has not filed any document to show the disputed measurements. The Court further observed that the plaintiff could now show prima facie evidence either oral or documentary to show that there was a dispute regarding the remaining extent of 28 feet x 1.50 feet site - Their Lordships of AP High Court held that the suit is at the inceptional stage and the trial has not yet commenced.-this Court is of the considered view that after the trial is completed and if the plaintiff is able to establish that originally she purchased 3 RCC shops in an extent of 28 feet x 12 feet and the constructions made by the defendants fall within any portion of the aforesaid extent purchased by her, she is at liberty to file a fresh application seeking appointment of the Commissioner to note the physical features of the plaint schedule shown in the plaint plan as ABCD marked portion and to make measurements and note down the boundaries etc, in which case the trial Court shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order.

AP High Court 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

Civil Revision Petition No.68 of 2021

Samanthula Vasanthalaxmi 

-verses-

Althi Kishore

ORDER:

 Heard Smt. Taddi Sowmya Naidu, counsel representing Sri

Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Ambati

Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. As can be seen, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.181/2020, filed

by the petitioner/plaintiff, seeking appointment of the Commissioner

to note the physical features of the plaint schedule shown in the plaint

plan mentioned ABCD marked portion on the main ground that the

plaintiff failed to file any document to show about the disputed

measurements and she filed the plaint schedule basing on the

boundaries mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 09.10.2006 and she has

not filed any document to show the disputed measurements. The

Court further observed that the plaintiff could now show prima facie

evidence either oral or documentary to show that there was a dispute

regarding the remaining extent of 28 feet x 1.50 feet site. On these

observations the trial Court expressed its disinclination to appoint the

Commissioner.

3. As can be seen, the suit is at the inceptional stage and the trial

has not yet commenced. The suit is for mandatory injunction for

demolition of illegal construction of shops allegedly made by the

defendants in the plaint schedule site, morefully shown in the plaint 

2

plan mentioned ABCD red marked portion, and for permanent

injunction.

4. Having regard to the nature of the suit and considering that the

suit is in the neonatal stage, this Court is of the considered view that

after the trial is completed and if the plaintiff is able to establish that

originally she purchased 3 RCC shops in an extent of 28 feet x 12 feet

and the constructions made by the defendants fall within any portion

of the aforesaid extent purchased by her, she is at liberty to file a fresh

application seeking appointment of the Commissioner to note the

physical features of the plaint schedule shown in the plaint plan as

ABCD marked portion and to make measurements and note down the

boundaries etc, in which case the trial Court shall consider the same

and pass an appropriate order.

5. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above

observations. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any

pending, shall stand closed.

__________________________

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

20.03.2021

MVA