Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 against dismissal of a petition for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner. The Court held that with no dispute on property identity, noting physical features was unnecessary.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1425 OF 2010
Between:
Chaganti Rama Rao
..... PETITIONER
AND
The APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others
....RESPONDENTS
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1425 OF 2010
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order and decree, dated 22.12.2009, in I.A.No.1138 of 2009 in I.A.No.618 of 2009 in O.S.No.142 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for appointment of an Advocate – Commissioner to note down the physical features of the petition schedule property,
was dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Petitioner herein claims to be the tenant and his tenancy seems to be over. However, the respondents filed written statement, wherein they have not disputed about the identity of the petition schedule property. When there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property, the question of noting down the physical features of the property in question does not arise. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________ K.C. BHANU, J
April 13, 2010 MD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ jurisdiction under Article 227 can interfere with an order dismissing a petition to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to note physical features of property when there is no dispute regar
Whether the trial Court properly dismissed the petition for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner given the lack of dispute about the property's identity.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chaganti Rama Rao
The APSRTC
K.C. BHANU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
