This order dismisses a civil revision petition challenging the lower court's refusal to appoint an Advocate Commissioner in a suit for permanent injunction. The court upheld the lower court's view that collecting evidence on behalf of a party during plaintiff's evidence stage is impermissible.
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 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.160 of 2013
Dated: 08.02.2013
Between: Ampolu Eswara Venkata Krishna … Petitioner AND Pondru Prathima ... Respondent
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.160 of 2013
ORDER:
Heard Sri P.Krishna Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Lakshmi Narayana, the learned counsel for the respondent.
By the order under revision, the Court below had dismissed the defendant’s application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and localize/measure the suit schedule property with the Mandal Surveyor. Hence the present revision petition by the defendant.
Admittedly, the suit is filed by the respondent herein for permanent injunction and the suit is at the stage of plaintiff’s further evidence. It may be true that the plaintiff, while deposing as PW.1 in
his cross-examination, stated that he has no objection for appointment of Advocate Commissioner with the help of Mandal Surveyor. However, as rightly held by the Court below, appointment of Advocate Commissioner in a suit for injunction is impermissible since it would amount to collection of evidence in favour of one of the parties. Hence, the Court below has rightly declined to appoint the advocatecommissioner. The order under revision is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any patent error of fact or law. Hence the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
_____________ G.ROHINI, J 08th February, 2013. Ivd/gra
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in a suit for injunction is permissible.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ampolu Eswara Venkata Krishna
Pondru Prathima
G. ROHINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
