Disposal of a civil revision petition questioning the convening of an Advocate Commissioner. The court disposed of the petition without costs and closed pending miscellaneous petitions.
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 DR. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 40 OF 2014
ORDER:
The petitioners filed this revision questioning the orders in I.A.No. 79 of 2013 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the Courts suo motu appointed an Advocate Commissioner and that the report of the Advocate Commissioner may ultimately be misconstrued by the Court. I hope and trust that the Court would exercise its discretion properly after the report of the Commissioner is filed before the Court. I, therefore, consider that the order under question does not deserve to be interfered with. This Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the urgency in the matter, directions may be issued to the trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously. If the Court considers it appropriate to dispose of the matter expeditiously, they are at liberty to
do so. Consequently, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any in this Revision, shall also stand closed.
______________________________ DR.JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
DATE: 24.01.2014 KA
K.G. SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
