Allowed

Nimmagal Shahin, v. T.M. Musibur Rahaman

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Dec 2021CRP/644/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the civil revision petition to set aside the trial court's order dismissing an application for an Advocate-Commissioner, directing that the commissioner be appointed solely to ascertain if the suit land is barren or used for agriculture.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 08.03.2021 in I.A.No.29 of 2021 and direct appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner only for ascertaining barrenness.

Nimmagal Shahin, Vs T.M. Musibur Rahaman — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.644 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.32 of 2020 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram for partition of the suit schedule property. It appears that the respondents, who are the defendants in the suit, took the plea that the suit schedule property, essentially consists of barren land. The petitioner had thereupon filed I.A.No.29 of 2021 for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to conduct auction of the item Nos.1 to 3 of the schedule property and to deposit the proceeds of the sale of the harvested crop into the Court.

¶4

The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 08.03.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶5

Heard Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manohar Reddy Mallasani, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the relief sought in the application goes beyond the scope of what the Advocate-Commissioner can undertake. He seeks to confine the prayer in the application to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the suit schedule property is barren land or whether agriculture is being carried on in the land.

¶7

¶8

Sri Manohar Reddy Mallasani, learned counsel for the respondents objects the same and submits that the said exercise would amount to gathering of evidence and is not permissible.

¶9

In view of the fact that one of the central question, which arises in the suit is whether any income is being derived out of the suit land, it would be appropriate to set aside the order dated 08.03.2021 in I.A.No.29 of 2021 in O.S.No.32 of 2020 and direct the trial Judge to appoint an AdvocateCommissioner only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the suit schedule land is barren land or agriculture is being carried out in the said land.

¶10

Accordingly, the C.R.P. is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶13

16.12.2021 SDP

¶14

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶16

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.644 of 2021

¶17

16-12-2021

¶18

SDP

Nimmagal Shahin, v. T.M. Musibur Rahaman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nimmagal Shahin, v. T.M. Musibur Rahaman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yeddula Peddi Raju Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Katikala Sysabu Vs the Deputy Commissioner

T Venkateswara Rao Vs Chulukoti Vijayalakshmi

Maganti Sarath Vs Maganti at Vankina Sri Vidya

Maganti Sarath Vs Maganti Alias Vankina Sri Vidya

J. Gopala Krishna Vs Kolli Kishore