Sunkari.Radha Kumari Vs Vajragada Raju

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the impugned Decree and Order dtd. 18-01-2023 passed in I.A. 1021/2022 in O.S. No. 114/2017, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurapalli, Vizianagaram District

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Stay all further proceedings in the suit O.S. 114 / 2017, on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram district and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.B M PATRO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.T V SRI DEVI

¶26

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Heard Sri B.M. Patro, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. Upendra, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶30

The plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.114 of 2017 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurupalli filed this civil revision petition (hereinafter referred to as ‘revision’) against the order dated 18.01.2023 in I.A.No.1021 of 2022.

¶31

The revision petitioner, being the plaintiff, instituted the suit O.S.No.114 of 2017 seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants, restraining them, their men, etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

The plaintiff pleaded that she is the absolute owner of a vacant site admeasuring 463 square yards in Survey Nos.1/11 (New Survey No.1/3), Koduru Village, Garividi Mandal, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 13.06.2012. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff erected a small thatched shed therein. When the defendants attempted to interfere, the aforementioned suit was filed.

¶34

Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement and denied the title and possession of the plaintiff over the subject property. It was pleaded that the plaint schedule property is ancestral, and the defendants erected a shed to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents. It was further pleaded that the defendants applied for a survey of the plaint schedule property, and the revenue officials conducted a survey. Eventually prayed to dismiss the suit.

¶35

Pending the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1021 of 2022 under Order XXVI Rule 9 and Section 151 of C.P.C. to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to localise the plaint schedule property with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor and to note down the physical features.

¶36

The said petition was opposed by respondent No. 4/defendant No.4.

¶37

The trial Court, on considering the case facts, dismissed the petition, by placing reliance on the decisions reported in Bongu Ramulu and Another vs. Gudur Narendra Reddy¹ and A Rajagopala Reddy and Ors. V. G. Swami Reddy and Ors² . The trial Court observed that there is no dispute regarding the identity of the property, and the dispute is with regard to the possession of the property.

¶38

1 1998 (3) ALT 473

¶39

2 2020 (3) ALD 484

¶40

Page 4 of 4

¶41

The point for consideration is :

¶42

Whether the order dated 18.01.2023 in I.A.No.1021 of 2022 in O.S.No.114 of 2017 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurupalli, suffers from any illegality or perversity, warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

¶43

Admittedly, the suit is filed for a perpetual injunction. In a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintiff has to prove and plead possession of the property on the date of filing the suit.

¶44

In the facts of the present case, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to localise the suit schedule property, in the considered opinion of this Court, amounts to the collection of evidence, which is impermissible. The trial Court considered this aspect and dismissed the application. This Court doesn't find any illegality or perversity warranting the interference, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction. There are no merits in the revision, and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, this revision is dismissed. No costs.

¶45

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

¶46

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 06.07.2026 IKN

¶47

Whether the order is :

¶48

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No

¶49

Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

Sunkari.Radha Kumari v. Vajragada Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunkari.Radha Kumari v. Vajragada Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pathakota Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S Vigneswara Traders Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bandi Kousalya Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kurminelly Venkunaidu Vs Reddi Ramunaidu

D.Parvathamma (Died) Vs Dudi Eswaramma

Marisa Srinivasa Rao Vs Raghumahanthi Maniraju Kumari