Allowed

Atmuri Vara Lakshmi, v. Tata Leela Sudhamini Devi

Telangana HC18 Nov 2015CRP/3763/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition challenging an order dismissing an application for an Advocate Commissioner, the High Court held that the trial court erred in refusing the application despite a pending suit for declaration and possession. The Court set aside the order and directed the trial court to appoint the Commissioner within a month to note physical features.

What did the court decide?

Order setting aside the impugned order was set aside; appointment of an Advocate Commissioner directed within one month; suit disposal directed within two months.

Atmuri Vara Lakshmi, Vs Tata Leela Sudhamini Devi — Partition | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3763 of 2015

¶3

DATED 18^th November, 2015

¶4

BETWEEN

¶5

Atmuri Vara Lakshmi

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

Tata Leela Sudhamini Devi

¶9

…Respondent

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶11

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3763 of 2015

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The plaintiff in O.S.No.488 of 2006 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam is the petitioner herein. She filed I.A.No.382 of 2015 in the said suit for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and file a plan including any unauthorized construction in the plaint schedule property by taking assistance of the Mandal Surveyor. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 25.08.2015, challenging which the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶14

The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that her father purchased an extent of 341.97 square yards of house site in her favour and an extent of 68.63 square yards was occupied by the respondent/defendant and a RCC building was constructed therein. The case of the respondent/defendant is that the father of the petitioner/plaintiff was present at the time of purchase of the disputed property, taking measurements and at the time of house warming ceremony performed after completion of the construction. The respondent/defendant who was examined as DW.1 stated in his cross examination that an Advocate Commissioner may be appointed for measuring the land if there is any dispute. It was further stated that since the plaintiff lost a portion of the land in the road widening, the present suit was filed. The suit is filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the disputed property admeasuring 68.83 square yards. The learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge dismissed the said application with the following observations:

¶15

“The main suit is filed for the year 2006, it is posted for declaration. When the matter is posted for arguments the present application is filed to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down physical features of plaint schedule property without assigning any reason to allow this application. More over the Honourable 10^th Additional District Judge directed to dispose of the matter within a 6 months. The petitioner without taking any steps since 2006, at present he filed this application without any bonafide ground. Therefore the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.”

¶16

It is no doubt true that the suit is of the year 2006 and the impugned interlocutory application was filed at the fag end of the suit i.e. after completion of evidence and when the matter is posted for arguments. The petitioner/plaintiff who is alleging encroachment of her site should not be prevented from obtaining a report of the Advocate Commissioner. The cross examination of DW1 was completed in August, 2015. In the circumstances, if the suit is delayed by another three months, nothing happens. But the trial Court appears to have acted in view of the learned 10^th Additional District Judge’s direction to dispose of the matter within six months. In order to do

¶17

justice to the parties, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 25.8.2015 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

¶18

Accordingly the order under revision is set aside and the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam is directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and call for a report with regard to the physical features of the suit schedule property based on the documents produced by the plaintiff and defendant, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the suit itself shall be disposed of within two months thereafter.

¶19

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.

¶20

JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶21

DATED 17^th November,2015..

¶22

Msnrx

Atmuri Vara Lakshmi, v. Tata Leela Sudhamini Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atmuri Vara Lakshmi, v. Tata Leela Sudhamini Devi

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

Bandi Suresh, Vs Konutu Ranganayakulu

Bandi Suresh, Vs Konuru Ranganayakulu

P.Purushotham Naidu, Vs G.Venkataswamy Naidu

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs Geddala Kumari

Toom Rajender Reddy Vs K.Vasudeva Rao

Mudurukola Thirupathi Vs a. Srinivas