The High Court dismissed a revision petition against an order refusing to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for a survey. It held that court-assisted survey before evidence submission is impermissible and the aggrieved party should approach revenue authorities.
Revision dismissed; order under revision affirmed; no costs awarded.
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
C.R.P. No. 732 of 2011
Oral order:
This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 14.02.2011 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy district, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 1153 of 2010 in O.S. No. 298 of 2008, filed by the petitioners praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, to conduct survey and find out whether the suit schedule property forms part and parcel of land in Sy. No. 8 or Sy. No.11 of Kapra village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, with the help of Surveyor and to note down the physical features of the same.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order under revision.
As can be seen from the order under revision, the petitionersplaintiffs, who filed the suit for injunction against the respondentsdefendants, are claiming land in Sy. No. 8 of Kapra village, while the respondents-defendants are claiming plot Nos. 16 and 17 in Sy. No. 11 of Kapra village. As the land claimed by the petitioners-plaintiffs and the plots claimed by the respondents-defendants, are situated in different survey numbers, the Court below refused to appoint Advocate Commissioner, to conduct survey to ascertain whether the suit schedule property formed part of Sy. No. 8 or Sy. No.11 of Kapra village, because the land will be located in different layouts, and no
interference is called for therewith by this Court, because if the request of the petitioners-plaintiffs to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct survey and note down the physical features of the property, is acceded to, then it would amount to collection of evidence on behalf of the petitioners-plaintiffs, even before their letting in evidence, which cannot be permitted. If there is dispute as to in which survey number, the land in question exists, then the petitioners-plaintiffs can very well approach the revenue authorities and get the survey done, but certainly they cannot take the assistance of the Court, for identification of their property. In that view of the matter, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of this Court in Mohammed Mahmood Ali v. Municipal Council, Suryape t[1] , would not assist the petitioners-plaintiffs in any manner.
Hence, for the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
8th April, 2011 IBL
[1] 2008 (5) ALT 797
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the lower court's refusal to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a survey for property identification.
Whether court assistance for identification of property before letting in evidence violates the principle of collection of evidence on behalf of the petitioner.
Petitioners-Plaintiffs
Respondents-Defendants
N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
