Dismissed

Smt. D.Sujatha v. M.Prabhakar

Telangana HC6 Dec 2014CRP/3404/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application for an Advocate Commissioner. While the Commissioner's report was accepted, the court held ascertainment of damages for use and occupation was incomplete and directed the lower court to complete the enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file separate application for completion of mesne profits enquiry; lower court to complete within 10 weeks.

Smt. D.Sujatha Vs M.Prabhakar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3404 OF 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the order dated 16.06.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, in I.A.No.200 of 2011 in O.S.No.2 of 2001, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rules 11 and 12 of C.P.C praying the Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to determine the rent of suit property from 1.6.2000 to 18.10.2003, was dismissed on the ground that the very relief sought in the present I.A was already sought in I.A.No.234 of 2004 and Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he filed his report.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioners that they filed a suit in O.S.No.2 of 2001 for eviction, recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for damages and it has been decreed on 25.09.2002. While decreeing the suit, the Court below stated to have ordered the petitioners to file a separate application for determination of the damages from 01.06.2000 to till the date of delivery of possession.

¶6

Infact by an order dated 22.11.2004, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the Court below in I.A.No.234 of 2004 in O.S.No.2 of 2001, and he filed his report on 08.07.2005. The Court below by its docket order dated 07.04.2009 accepted the said report. However, the Court below did not take any steps to make an enquiry for the purpose of ascertainment of damages for the use and occupation of the building from 01.06.2000 onwards till the date of delivery of the possession. In view of the fact that the I.A.No.234 of 2004 was filed only with regard to appointment of Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the damages for the use and occupation of the suit property and the Commissioner filed his interim report, it may

¶7

not be correct to say that the ascertainment of damages has been completed. In that view of the matter, it is for the petitioners/plaintiffs to file a separate application before the Court below in O.S.No.2 of 2001 seeking a direction to complete the ascertainment of damages that are payable for the period from 01.06.2000 onwards till the date of delivery of the possession. On such filing of the application, the Court below shall complete the enquiry and dispose of the same within a period of 10 weeks from the date of filing of the application. Both the parties shall cooperate for the determination of the mesne profits. It is further made clear that as the determination of mesne profits was delayed only on account of the failure on the part of the petitioners, no interest shall be liable to be paid on this account.

¶8

With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.

¶9

____________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶10

Date:06.12.2014 Gk.

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶12

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3404 OF 2014

¶13

Date:06.12.2014.

¶14

Gk.

Smt. D.Sujatha v. M.Prabhakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. D.Sujatha v. M.Prabhakar

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

Smt. N. Prameela Vs The Child Development Project Officer

Smt.Sarala Jain Vs Sangu Gangathar

Duvvada Varalaxmi Vs The Project Director

Ch. Paramjyothi Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.

P.V.A.S.K. Varma Vs The Commissioner

Masjid-e-Sayyadana Bilal, Vs Mohd. Ameeruddin