Dismissed

Adabala Srinivasa Rao, v. Adabala Venkata Lakshmi

Telangana HC3 Sept 2010CRP/3914/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in civil revision, dismissed the petition challenging the trial court's order appointing an advocate commissioner to measure disputed property and file a report. The Court held there was no ground to interfere as the commissioner must act on party memos and the petitioner could challenge the report or judgment later.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; Advocate Commissioner directed to execute warrant as per work memos.

Adabala Srinivasa Rao, Vs Adabala Venkata Lakshmi — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3914 of 2010

¶3

Between: Adabala Srinivasa Rao and another.

¶4

… Petitioners

¶5

And Adabala Venkata Lakshmi and others

¶6

… Respondents

¶7

This Court made the following:

¶8

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶9

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3914 of 2010

¶10

ORDER:-

¶11

This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution, by the petitioners/defendants, assailing the correctness of the docket order, dated 17.02.2010, passed in I.A.No.95 of 2010 in O.S.No.634 of 2009 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada appointing an advocate commissioner to localize and measure the schedule property with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor with reference to the registered gift deed, dated 28.05.2006, and file a report.

¶12

The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession of the ABEF Portion of the plaint plan and directing the petitioners/defendants to handover the vacant possession of the same. Pending the suit, the above I.A. came to be filed, which was contested by the petitioners stating that they constructed the house in the year 1991 in the property purchased by them.

¶13

The trial court by the impugned order appointed an advocate commissioner directing him to issue notice to both the parties before executing the warrant and take the work memos if any.

¶14

The order so passed is clearly a discretionary order to resolve the dispute among the parties. There is no ground for the petitioner to question the said order at this stage for the reason that he is at liberty to file the work memos and basing upon the said memos the advocate commissioner is under obligation to execute the warrant. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the report filed by the advocate commissioner, he can file objections to the said report and can examine the commissioner and it is for the court to consider the said objections and pass appropriate orders either accepting the report or rejecting the same. In case, if the case is decided against the petitioner, he can also question the same in appeal, if he so chooses.

¶15

In view of the same, I do not see any ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.

¶16

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the advocate commissioner is under obligation to execute the warrant as per the work memos filed by the parties, as directed by the trial Court.

¶17

_________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J

¶18

3^rd September 2010 Note: Issue CC by two days B/o lmv

Adabala Srinivasa Rao, v. Adabala Venkata Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adabala Srinivasa Rao, v. Adabala Venkata Lakshmi

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

Kuntheti Venkata Subba Rao , Subba Rao, Vs The State of A.P.

M/s. Urvasi Enterprises, Rajahmundry Vs Runkani Venkateswara Rao

M/s. Urvasi Enterprises, Rajahmundry Vs Iyyapu Madhava Rao

Nalamasa Vijay Kumar, Vs Nalamasa Manjula

Gubbala Veera Venkata satyanarayana Vs Mamidisetti CHitkaladevi

V.Venkata Bhaskar Somu Vs Smt.Peketi Tulasi