Dismissed

Badireddy Vijaya Sagar v. Chekka Veera Venkata Ramana

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jul 2023CRP/1657/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order rejecting a belated application for appointment of a successor advocate-commissioner, holding the suit was dismissed on multiple grounds and the delay was to cause oppression.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed at admission stage with no costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Badireddy Vijaya Sagar Vs Chekka Veera Venkata… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1657 OF 2023

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 06-01-2023 in I.A No.1337 of 2018 in A.S.No.96 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the III rd Addl. Dist Judge at Kakinada, East Godavari District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Badireddy Vijaya Sagar, S/o. Bulliraju, Hindu, aged 64 years, residing at D.No. 65-9-8/A,Business, Opp, GPT for women Mehernagar, Kakinada, Kakinada District.

¶9

Badireddy Prasad Babu, S/o. Bulliraju, Hindu, aged 62 years, residing at D.No. 65-9-8/A, Eployee, Opp, GPT for women Mehernagar, Kakinada, Kakinada District.

¶10

...PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS

¶11

AND

¶12

Chekka Veera Venkata Ramana, S/o. late. Satyam,56 years,Employee. D,No. 4-383/1, BOB Colony,Galgolapadu, Kakinada Rural Mandal.

¶13

Bommidi Naga Padmavathi, W/o. Ch.V.V.Ramana,49 years,House Wife. D,No. 4-383/1, BOB Colony,Galgolapadu, Kakinada Rural Mandal.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 15lof CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Stay of all further proceedings in AS No. 96 of 2014.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. T SREEDHAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 and 2: N. A

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

CMR, J. C.R.P. No.1657 of 2023

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶23

Civil Revision Petition No.1657 of 2023

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 06.01.2023, passed in I.A.No.1337 of 2018 in A.S.No.96 of 2014 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC to appoint second advocate-commissioner, was dismissed.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶27

The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the Suit in O.S.No.158 of 2011 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The said Suit was filed for declaration of their title in respect of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction. In the trial Court, they filed a petition for appointment of an advocate-commissioner for local inspection of the plaint schedule property and to submit a report. The said petition was allowed and advocate-commissioner was appointed. He has also filed his report. However, as the said advocatecommissioner died, the petitioners could not examine him as a witness in the said Suit. Eventually, after full trial, the Suit was

¶28

¶29

CMR, J. C.R.P. No.1657 of 2023

¶30

dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, they have preferred an appeal in A.S. No.96 of 2014 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The said Appeal was filed long back in the year 2014. Now, in the year 2023, nine years after preferring the Appeal, the present petition was filed for appointment of another advocate-commissioner for local inspection and to submit his report on the ground that they could not examine the advocate-commissioner in the trial Court, as he died.

¶31

The first appellate Court dismissed the said petition by the impugned order. The first appellate Court clearly held in its order that the Suit was not dismissed only on the ground that the petitioners did not examine the advocate-commissioner. It is held that the trial Court dismissed the Suit on several other grounds, which are clearly discussed in the impugned order of the first appellate Court. When that be the case, there is no impending need to consider the request of the petitioners for appointment of another advocate-commissioner. If really, the petitioners intend to seek orders from the first appellate^{Court to} appoint another advocate-commissioner, they ought to^{have filed} the petition well within time when the^{Appealwasfiledinthe}

¶32

¶33

CMR, J. C.R.P. No.1657 of 2023

¶34

year 2014 or at least at the earliest point of time. Now, when the old Appeal of the year 2014 is coming up for hearing, the present petition is filed. So, obviously, the petition is filed to further delay the disposal of the Appeal, which is an old Appeal of the year 2014.

¶35

Therefore, the impugned order of the first appellate Court warrants no interference in this Civil Revision Petition and it is perfectly sustainable under law.

¶36

Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.

¶37

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall also stand closed.

¶38

SDI- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Ilird Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

¶43

One CC to SRI. T SREEDHAR Advocate [OPUC]

¶44

Three CD Copies PVD

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1410712023

ORDER

CRP.No.1657 of 2023

— Lv11 p z tto l23

DISMISSING THE CRP AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION

Badireddy Vijaya Sagar v. Chekka Veera Venkata Ramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badireddy Vijaya Sagar v. Chekka Veera Venkata Ramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. N. Ramesh Kumar Vs The Election Commission of India

G.v.Rama Krishna Rao Vs Arumilli Karuna Kumar

M/S.Sri Penusila Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Constructions Vs Sri.Samsher Singh Rawath,Ias

Yeramati Ammiraju, Vs Yeramati Krishna Kalyani

Shaik Moulana Vs Shaik Khadarvali

Yerubandi Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs Eli Arun Kumar