Dismissed

Musunuru Krishnaiah v. Burla Prasad Reddy

Telangana HC25 Apr 2013CRP/343/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition against the order of a Senior Civil Judge rejecting an application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to inspect suit land in a suit for permanent injunction, holding the trial court's decision justified.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed; miscellaneous applications disposed of as infructuous; no order as to costs.

Musunuru Krishnaiah Vs Burla Prasad Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.343 of 2013

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

Musumuru Krishnaiah and others.

¶8

... PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

Burla Prasad Reddy and another.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTHY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. V. SUDHAKAR REDDY

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This revision is directed against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, in I.A.No.973 of 2012 in O.S.No.4 of 2009 dated 20.12.2012 dismissing the application of the petitioners/defendants for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit land.

¶16

2. Heard learned counsel on either side.

¶17

3. The suit out of which this revision arises is merely a suit for permanent injunction. Both the parties, apparently, had lead evidence and it is not disputed at the bar that the suit is now heard finally and posted for judgment.

¶18

4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application, being I.A.No.973 of 2012, could have been entertained by the trial Court, as it was only for the purpose of apprising the Court of the physical features of the property.

¶19

5. The controversy appears to be as to whether the suit land is kept fallow or is under cultivation and the apparent purpose in seeking appointment of the Advocate Commissioner is to know whether the suit land is cultivated or not. Apart from the fact that both the parties have lead evidence on all aspects and the controversies in the suit,

¶20

the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner for the aforesaid purpose in a suit for permanent injunction would only amount to appointing the Commissioner for collecting evidence and in my opinion, the order of the Court below, declining the said request of the petitioner, is clearly justified and calls for no interference.

¶21

The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶22

The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶24

April 25, 2013 DSK

Musunuru Krishnaiah v. Burla Prasad Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musunuru Krishnaiah v. Burla Prasad Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chintam Koteswara Rao Vs Grandi Venkata Ratna Mahalakshmi

T.Raju, Vs Mr. Balakrishna

Kedamal Vs The Joint Collector

Beeda Ravi Chandra Vs Muthyala Bala Rami Reddy

Beeda Ravi Chandra Vs Muthyala Bala Rami Reddy

Poondla Venku Reddy, Vs Vakati Ravindra Reddy