Civil Revision Petition against an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down physical features of suit property. The High Court held the order was reasonable as parties can adduce best evidence for local descriptions and dismissed the revision.
Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3970 OF
2011
ORDER:
This revision is filed against the order dated 19.8.2011 passed in I.A.No.226 of 2011 in O.S.No. 2313 of 2010 by the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Petitioner herein is the first defendant in the suit viz., O.S.No. 2313 of 2010. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed an application viz., I.A.No. 226 of 2011 under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and other relevant factors with regard to the suit schedule property. The Court below allowed that application by appointing the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the petition schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial court failed to consider the objection raised by the petitioner herein about filing of earlier petition for similar
reliefs and still passed a wrong order under revision.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the order passed by the court below is quite reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record.]
As seen from the record, the plaintiff filed an application, seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and other relevant factors with regard to the suit schedule property. As the Court cannot prevent a party from adducing the best evidence and the object of appointment of an advocate commissioner is for a limited purpose of noting down the physical features of the suit schedule property and to take photographs of the same and file a rough sketch plan, which is local in character, the court below allowed the application. Hence, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
GHULAM MOHAMMED, J
DATE: 18th November 2011 KA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in allowing an application for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down physical features of suit property despite an objection regarding a prior petition
Whether the court prevented a party from adducing best evidence regarding the local nature of the suit schedule property.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
First Defendant
First Respondent
Ghulam Mohammed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
