Dismissed

Karri Somi Reddy v. Manda Nagi Reddy

Telangana HC2 Dec 2016CRP/4353/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed revisions filed against orders rejecting applications for appointing an Advocate-Commissioner to conduct a survey of property. The Court held that the delay of over 10 years and the unchallenged dismissal of a prior application for re-entrustment justified the lower court's refusal to entertain the plea at the reply arguments stage.

What did the court decide?

Revisions against orders rejecting applications for Advocate-Commissioner dismissed; no costs.

Karri Somi Reddy Vs Manda Nagi Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

C.R.P. Nos.4318 and 4353 of 2016

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

These two Revisions arise out of the same suit as between the same parties. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶5

Petitioner in these two Revisions is the plaintiff in O.S.No.335 of 2006. He filed the suit for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession of ‘ABCD’ plaint plan property after ejecting the respondent.

¶6

After trial concluded and petitioner as well as respondent submitted arguments, and when matter was coming up for reply arguments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.258 of 2016 under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining the correct measurements of the plaint plan property and the properties of respondent with reference to their respective sale deeds with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor by superseding the earlier report of an Advocate-Commissioner in I.A.No.794 of 2012, and I.A.No.257 of 2016 to reopen the matter for entertaining the application under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C.

¶7

These two applications were opposed by the respondent.

¶8

The Court below rejected them on the ground that in I.A.No.794 of 2012 Advocate-Commissioner was already appointed

¶9

MSR,J C.R.P.Nos.4318 & 4353 of 2016

¶10

¶11

and had submitted a report; there was an application I.A.No.484 of 2013 filed by petitioner to redirect the same Commissioner, which was dismissed on 13-06-2014; but this was not challenged by way of Revision; that the suit has already been part heard and at that stage, 10 years of the filing of suit, I.A.No.258 of 2016 could not have been filed.

¶12

It rejected I.A.No.257 of 2016 on the ground that I.A.No.258 of 2016 has been dismissed and the reasons are given in I.A.No.258 of 2016.

¶13

Challenging the same, these Revisions are filed.

¶14

Though leaned counsel for petitioner sought to contend that refusal of the Court below to appoint Advocate-Commissioner causes grave prejudice to petitioner and that in the survey conducted by the earlier Advocate-Commissioner, certain important aspects were not taken into account, the fact remains that I.A.No.484 of 2013 was filed by petitioner for re-entrustment of warrant to the same AdvocateCommissioner, but it was dismissed. The said order has not been questioned by petitioner. 10 years after filing of the suit and when the suit is at the stage of submitting reply arguments, applications of this nature cannot be entertained and the Court below was, therefore, right in rejecting them.

¶15

I therefore do not find any merit in the Revisions and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶16

MSR,J C.R.P.Nos.4318 & 4353 of 2016

¶17

¶18

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall

¶19

stand closed.

¶20

JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶21

Date: 02-12-2016 Vsv/*

Karri Somi Reddy v. Manda Nagi Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karri Somi Reddy v. Manda Nagi Reddy

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

Bommagoni Prabhakar Goud S/o. Narayana Goud Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Mrs. Shruthi Sethi Vs The Reserve Bank of India, rep. by its Regional Manager

Sampadarao Venkata Srinivas, Vs The Union of India

K.Sunitha, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Raja Kalidindi Kumara Rangaraju Bahadur Vs Smt.Kalindindi Syamala Devi

Pallapu Upendra, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh