Dismissed

Sri Eesarapu Appa Rao, v. Smt.Penmatsa Satyanarayanamma

Telangana HC22 Feb 2013CRP/527/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition regarding a suit for bare injunction involving land measurements, the court dismissed the application for appointing an advocate commissioner. It held that such appointment amounts to impermissible evidence collection for one party, and the burden of establishing possession rests on the plaintiff.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs.

Sri Eesarapu Appa Rao, Vs Smt.Penmatsa Satyanarayanamma — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.527 OF 2013

¶3

Dated: 22.02.2013

¶4

Between: Sri Eesarapu Appa Rao and 2 others …..Petitioners And Smt. Penmatsa Satyanarayanamma and 2 others …..Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.527 OF 2013

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

The defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.907 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam filed this revision petition aggrieved by the dismissal of their application filed for appointment of a commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C.

¶9

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶10

As could be seen from the material available on record, the suit is for bare injunction. The revision petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 sought appointment of commissioner for the purpose of finding out the correct measurements, physical features and to identify the correct survey number and correct boundaries of the schedule property by comparing the plaintiff’s documents as well as the plaintiff’s vendor’s documents and the revenue records with the assistance of Government/Mandal Surveyor. The Court below dismissed the said application and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the said order, firstly for the reason that the burden is on the plaintiff to establish her possession over the suit schedule land. Secondly, the suit being a suit for bare injunction, the purpose for which the advocate commissioner is sought to be appointed virtually amounts to collection of evidence in favour of one of the parties to the suit. The same being impermissible under law, the Court below cannot be said to have committed any illegality or

¶12

irregularity in dismissing the application. It is always open to both the parties to adduce the evidence in support of their respective claims, but it cannot be on the basis of the report of a commissioner.

¶13

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.

¶14

_____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶15

Date:22.02.2013 Ivd/nvl

Sri Eesarapu Appa Rao, v. Smt.Penmatsa Satyanarayanamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Eesarapu Appa Rao, v. Smt.Penmatsa Satyanarayanamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Subrahmanyam Vs Ch. Vijaya Kumar

Radi Balaraju, Vs Kolisi Mary

Poosapati Haranarayana Raju, S/o late Raghunadha Raju Vs Smt. T.Prabhavathi, W/o Tss Narayana Raju

Dr.Ramesh Kumar Vs M.Suresh Kumar

Mamidi Ramana Vs Ms. Jeeva Ambu Daniel

Dr.Ramesh Kumar Vs M.Suresh Kumar