Dismissed

Pdthu Obul Reddy v. Pothu Naga Malla Reddy

Telangana HC23 Oct 2017CRP/5395/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of the Civil Revision Petition at the admission stage, finding no expediency in issuing notice. The petition challenged the dismissal of a request to appoint an advocate commissioner to verify suit property identity, which the Court held lacked merit as the matter was ready for arguments.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage; no costs awarded.

Pdthu Obul Reddy Vs Pothu Naga Malla Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5395 of 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for petitioners.

¶5

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of at the admission stage,

¶6

as this Court found no expediency in ordering notice.

¶7

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order in I.A.No. 1121 of 2017 in O.S.No. 101 of 2013 on the file of III Additional

¶8

Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, whereunder the Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 26 Rule 9 read with 151 CPC, to appoint an advocate commissioner to visit the suit locality and to note down the “J K L M” rastha which is mentioned in Ex. A3 plaint plan and other existing physical features in the interest of justice.

¶9

The main reason for seeking appointment of commissioner as per

¶10

the pleadings of the petitioners before the trial Court is that the respondents/defendants have filed a plan, which does not match with the existing features on the ground and thereby, a confusion had arisen in respect of the plaint schedule property. The respondents/defendants opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit for perpetual injunction in respect of two items of the

¶11

¶12

UDPR, J CRL.P.NO. 5395 OF 2017

¶13

property, item one is thatched hut and item two is a site and nowhere the plaintiffs claimed rastha, and therefore, the plaintiffs have to prove their lawful possession over the suit property from the date of filing the suit and in that view there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property and appointment of the commissioner would amount to collection of evidence and nothing more.

¶14

Having been satisfied with the contention of the respondents and

¶15

also finding that in this case the evidence was adduced by both the parties and the matter was coming up for arguments and at that stage there was no reason to appoint the advocate commissioner, the trial Court dismissed the petition.

¶16

A perusal of the impugned order does not show any perversity or jurisdictional error to consider the CRP. As already pointed out by the trial Court, the trial went on and the matter was coming up for arguments and till that stage nobody had complained about the dispute in identity of

¶17

the property, which in fact, was not there. In that view of the matter, no ideal purpose would be served in appointing an advocate commissioner,

¶18

as rightly observed by the trial Court. Having found no reasons to interfere with the orders of the Court below, the Civil Revision Petition is

¶19

¶20

UDPR, J CRL.P.NO. 5395 OF 2017

¶21

dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. As a sequel there to, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶22

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶23

Date: 23.10.2017 KA

Pdthu Obul Reddy v. Pothu Naga Malla Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pdthu Obul Reddy v. Pothu Naga Malla 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

M/S.Classic Marketers, Vs M/s. Relax Industries

Smt.M.Nagaharshita, Vs M.Anil Kumar

Gogikar Sainath, Vs T.Venugopal

A.Avanakshi Modali Vs P.Prakasam Naidu and 3 Others.

B Narayanamma [Died] and 5 Others Vs Bunga Mukunda Rao, Srikakulam Dist and 2 Others

Syed Ahmed, Vs S.M. Amjad Ali