Civil Revision Petition dismissed as the lower court correctly rejected the application for an Advocate Commissioner since a violation of injunction warrants a separate cause of action rather than inspection at the hearing stage.
Civil Revision Petition No.3747 of 2010 and connected C.R.P.M.P. No.5018 of 2010 dismissed.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3747 of 2010
Date: 16.12.2010
Between:
Killamsetti Mohana Rao ..... Petitioner AND Gudia Seshibushanarao and another
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M. Ram Mohan
Counsel for Respondents: --
The Court made the following: ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 30.07.2010 passed in I.A.No.150 of 2010 in O.S.No.141 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta.
The plaintiff in the suit is the petitioner in this C.R.P. The petitioner has filed the abovementioned suit for declaration of his easementary right over the site shown as EGFH in the plaint plan. After the pleadings were filed, evidence was closed and the suit was coming up for hearing, the petitioner filed the above noted I.A. for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property measuring the same and to note the physical
features thereof. The cause for the petitioner for filing the said application was that the respondents have violated the interim injunction order by raising construction. The Court has rejected the application on the reasoning and in my view rightly that if the respondents have violated the order of injunction, that gives rise to a different cause of action for the petitioner and that there is no warrant for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner at the stage of hearing of the suit.
In my opinion, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application and the order under revision does not warrant interference by this Court.
On the premise above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the C.R.P., C.R.P.M.P.No.5018 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.
________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
16th December, 2010 GHN
Killamsetti Mohana Rao
Gudia Seshibushanarao
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
