High Court dismissed Civil Revision Petition challenging an order appointing a Commissioner to ascertain physical features of disputed property to aid disposal of an injunction suit.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; Interim relief CRPMP disposed as infructuous.
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
C.R.P.No.1262 of 2014
Date : 4-9-2014
Between : K. Sanjeeva Reddy .. Petitioner And Jamma Sri Ramulu .. Respondent
Counsel for petitioner : Sri Penjuri Venugopal Counsel for respondent :
The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 21-3-2014 in I.A.No.649 of 2013 in I.A.No.316 of 2013 in O.S.No.93 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property. In I.A.No.316 of 2013, the petitioner sought for temporary injunction which was granted by the lower Court. The respondent, however, filed I.A.No.649 of 2013 under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an AdvocateCommissioner to note down the physical features i.e., existence of surface bore-well, submersible pump, pipeline, cattle shed with roof of asbestos sheets, a room for keeping the feed and agricultural equipments and another room for stay of the labour and paddy crop at ripe stage in the suit schedule property. By a detailed order, the lower Court has allowed this application.
Ordinarily, while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court will seldom interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the lower Courts. The application was filed by the respondent for the purpose of contesting the injunction application filed by the petitioner by pleading that he is in possession of the property and enjoying bore well, submersible pump etc. Under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, a Commissioner can be appointed, inter alia, for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. The lower Court in its wisdom has felt that the ascertainment of existence of the above mentioned physical features is necessary for disposal of the injunction petition. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the order of the lower Court warranting interference of this Court.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.1766 of 2014 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 4-9-2014 AM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether High Court should interfere with lower court's order allowing appointment of Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to ascertain physical features of disputed property.
Whether the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 warrants interference in a discretionary order regarding temporary injunction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Sanjeeva Reddy
Jamma Sri Ramulu
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
