Dismissed

B. Balaji Rao, v. M. Vijender Reddy

Telangana HC12 Apr 2010CRP/6249/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 challenging an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to inspect suit property. The Court held that the Commissioner's report on structures was admissible but could not be looked into further due to lack of property identity. The revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

B. Balaji Rao, Vs M. Vijender Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWELVTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6249 of 2006

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri B.Balaji Rao and others

¶8

…Revision Petitioners

¶9

AND

¶10

Sri M.Vijender Reddy and others.

¶11

…Respondents

¶12

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6249 of 2006

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 28.11.2006, in I.A.No.1262 of 2006 in O.S.No.522 of 2005, on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, whereunder and whereby, in the application filed under Sections 26 & 29 read with Order 39 Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property.

¶15

2. Heard both the counsel.

¶16

3. After appointment, it seems that the Advocate Commissioner has inspected the suit schedule land and filed a report into the Court. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule land is vacant, whereas the defendants contends that there are some existing structures in the suit schedule land. Evidence relating to these aspects has to be let in before the trial Court and the defendant, who had taken the plea that there are existing structures in the suit schedule land, should have filed a detailed report to that effect. The Advocate Commissioner so appointed had inspected the suit schedule land and filed a report into the Court as mentioned supra. To that extent, the finding of the Advocate Commissioner that some structures are

¶17

existing in the suit schedule land can be taken as evidence. Beyond that, the report of the Advocate Commissioner cannot be looked into, in view of the fact that there is no identity of the property wherein inspection is sought for by the plaintiff.

¶18

4. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

________________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶20

April 12, 2010 Bvv

B. Balaji Rao, v. M. Vijender Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Balaji Rao, v. M. Vijender Reddy

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

M/s. Theatre Radha a/c. Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

R.Venkateshwarlu Vs B.Krishna Reddy

Muntha Radhika Vs Muntha Ramesh Kumar

Smt. Potti Rajeshwari Vs Quader Mphiuddin

Vardhineni Srinivasulu Vs Kota Krishna Reddy

Foor Corporation of India Vs Murali Krishna Vaddera Labour Contract Coop.Society Ltd.