This revision petition sought to challenge an order dismissing a petition for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner following a prior observation that no permission for residential construction was needed under a specific Government Order. The court dismissed the revision.
The petition for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner was 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 GHULAM MOHAMMED
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3598 OF 2010
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the order dated 06.05.2010 passed in I.A.No.129 of 2010 in O.S.No.3653 of 2009 on the file of the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in dismissing the petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property.
Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reads as under.
“9. Commissions to make local investigations – In
any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court:”
The Court below dismissed the said petition with the following observation.
“Perused record and also G.O.Ms.No.423, MA and UD (MI) Department, dated 31.07.1998, it is clearly mentioned in above said G.O. that no permission is necessary for construction of residential building on plot to an extent of 100 Sq.mts. As per the plaint suit schedule property is 73.38 sq.mts., which is much within above said G.O. As per above G.O. also no set backs need be left on either sides for houses on 100 Sq.mts., abutting to road width 1.5 mts. Therefore, the appointment of Advocate Commissioner becomes futile and no
purpose will be solved. Even otherwise it will be headache of respondent to prove in trial that he has followed sanctioned plan in making construction.”
In the circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to grant the relief sought for and I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
_____________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J)
8th July 2011 RRB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the petition for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to note physical features of the suit property is correct.
Whether the discretion exercised by the Court below in refusing the appointment was erroneous.
Whether the impugned order suffers from any infirmity under Article 227 of the Constitution.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Unknown
Unknown
Ghulam Mohammed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
