Civil revision petition dismissing challenge to order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate a cart track. Court held appointment was valid for effective dispute resolution despite prior report, as parties claimed exclusive ownership and report was non-final.
Civil revision petition dismissed; no 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.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5245 of 2011 ORDER:
This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor District, allowing the application in I.A. No. 284 of 2011 in O.S. No. 356 of 2010, filed by the respondents praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the suit cart track and report as to from whose land it is passing, with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order under revision.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in another suit in O.S. No. 197 of 2009, the Court below had appointed an Advocate Commissioner, who, having visited the suit cart track, filed his report along with sketch. As the petitioner filed certified copies of the said report and sketch in the present suit, the learned counsel contends that there is no necessity to once again appoint an Advocate Commissioner, to demarcate the suit cart track and report as to from whose land the cart track is passing. Hence, he contends that the Court below committed an error in passing the order under revision, appointing Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the suit cart track and submit report as to from whose land the cart track is passing, and that if the order under revision is allowed to be sustained, it would amount to gathering of evidence by the Advocate Commissioner, for the respondents.
A perusal of the order under revision would disclose that both the parties are claiming that the suit cart track is passing through their lands. Earlier, in another suit, an Advocate Commissioner has visited the suit cart track and submitted report along with rough sketch. Though the certified copies of the said report and rough sketch are filed before the Court below, the Court below, upon perusing the same, found that in the said rough sketch, the cart track is shown towards the
northern side of the land of the 1st defendant, and as both the petitioners and respondents are claiming that the suit cart track is passing through their land alone, the Court below, for effective adjudication of the dispute, in exercise of its discretion, by the order under revision, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the suit cart track and ascertain as to from whose land the suit cart track is passing, with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor, and submit report. The Court below having appointed an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the ground reality, for effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties, it cannot be said that he has been appointed to gather evidence for the respondents. This apart, the report of the Advocate Commissioner is not final, as the petitioners are always at liberty to file their objections, if any, to the report, and if any such objections are filed, the Court below, would certainly consider them.
Hence, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
There is no merit in the civil revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
9th December, 2011 IBL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate a cart track, when a previous report exists, constitutes gathering of evidence for one party and warrants setting aside the order.
Whether the lower court exercised its discretion properly to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for effective adjudication given conflicting claims about land ownership of the cart track.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Petitioners
Respondents
N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
