Dismissed

The Nizam Sugars Limited (Nsl) v. Edamakanti Laxma Reddy

Telangana HC14 Dec 2021CRP/629/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in a suit for permanent injunction. The Court held that despite concerns on recording possession, specific directions for noting physical features justified the appointment without jurisdictional error.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Nizam Sugars Limited (Nsl) Vs Edamakanti Laxma Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 629 OF 2021

¶6

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated.30.03.2021^passed in l.A. No.53 of 2021 in l.A No. 108 o'f 2020 in O.S No. 5 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan.

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Nizam Sugars Limited^(NSL), represented by its Authorized Signatory Ramesh Babu.

¶9

The Deputy Manager, Nizam Sugars Limited,^(lncharge Core Committee), Shakkarnagar, Bodhan Town, District Nizamabad.

¶10

...Petitioners/Respondents/Defendants

¶11

AND

¶12

Edamakanti Laxma Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged 50^{years,D. No.5-89,} Bhulaxmi Camp, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶13

...RespondenUPetitioner/Plai ntiff

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmay be pleasedto grantsstay of} execution of order dated 30.03.202'1^{in LA. No.53 of 2021 in l.A. No.108 of 2020in} O.S. No.5 of 2020, on the file of^{the SeniorCivilJudge, Bodhan, pendingdisposal of} Civil Revision Petition No. /2021^.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRIN VASUDEVA REDDY}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent:^{SRI K. DURGA PRASAD}

¶18

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶19

¶20

THE HON'BLI^{SRI JUSTICEA. VENKATESH\tr'ARAREDDY}

¶21

C.R.P.No^.6 29^{of 2021}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The petiti^{rners/defendants-Nizam SugarsLimitedhave filed} this civil^{Revisi rn Petition under Article 227 0f the constitutionof} India, aggrieved^{ry the order dated 30.03.2021 in IA No 5l of 2021in} IANo.l08of2C20inoSNo'5of2020onthel.ileoftheSeniorCivil Judge's Court at^Bodhan.

¶24

The plair tiff has filed^{Original Suit No'5 ol 2020 for} declaration of t^{rle and perpetualinjunction against the def'endants-} Nizam Sugars^{,imited. Along with original suit, he has filed IA} No.108 of 202(^{for temporary injunction, whereinin the course of} enquiry, this^{aprlicationin IA No.53of 2021is filed under Order-} XXVI, Rule-g CPC^{requestingthe Coun below to appoint an} Advocate Comr tissioner^{to note down the physicalfeatureswith the} help of the^{r.ssistantDirector of Survey and LandRecords'} Nizamabad or' any other^{surveying authority to survey the suit} schedule^{propery and to notedown the structures, if any,in existence'}

¶25

The said application^{in IA No'53 of 2021 was allowed by the} court below wi^{h a detailedorder stating that the petitionersoughtfor} appointment o^{AdvocateCommissioneronly to note down the} physical featurts ofthe suit schedule^{propertyand that in view ofthe} orders in IA N^{r. 123} of^{2020, the plaintiff is permittedto amendthel} suit survey nur^{rbers as 689, 69l, 692,693 and 694part of Narsapur'}

¶26

Page 2 of3

¶27

AVR.J CRP No.629 of2021

¶28

Farm of Achanpalle Shivar,^{Bodhan Mandal, only to note down the} existing structures and it^{is categorically mentioned that it is not} necessary for the Advocate Commissioner^{to localize the land, but it is} sufficient to note down the^{physical featuresof suit scheduleproperty} and identification of the^{structures,if any.}

¶29

This order impugned^{is challengedby the revision petitioners/} defendants alleging^{that the leamed Judge ought to have appreciated} the fact that in a suit^{for perpetualinjunction such Advocate} Commissioner cannot^{be appointed'In fact, aggrieved by the order} dated 10.12.2020 in IA^{No.123 of 2020 under Order-VI, Rule-l7 of} Civil Procedure Code,^{the defendants travepreferred CRP No.267of} 2O2l and the same^{is dismissedby this Court. Order-XXVI,Rule-9} CPC deals with the^{powers of the Court to appoint Advocate} Commissioners. In a^{suit for perpetual injunction,there is no absolute} bar on appointment of^{the Advocate Commissioner, however,there} should not be any^{suchdirection to recordthe possessionof the parties} in respect of suil schedule^property.

¶30

In the case on hand, the^{Court belowhas categoricallydirected} the leamed Advocate^{Commissioner to note down the physical} features of the suit schedule^{property to know whether any structures} are in existence in^{the landin SurveyNos.689,691 , 692,693 and part} of 694. As the dispute^{is only regardingexistenceof structures,the} Court below has^{recordedvalidreasonsfor appointment of Advocate}

¶31

¶32

Page 3 of3

¶33

AVR.J CRP No.629 o1202^I

¶34

commissioner fo^{the limitedpurpose,which is in accordancewith} the principles^la: J by^{this Court in various judgments' Therefore'} viewed from any angle,^{the order underrevisiondoesnot suffer from} any fundamental^{.nfrrmity nor there is any jurisdictional error, which}

¶35

warrants interferc rce^{by this Court.}

¶36

In the resu t, the Civil^{Revision Petitionis dismissedHowever'} there shall be n,, order^{as to costs.MiscellaneousPetitions, if any}

¶37

pending in this n vision petition, shall^{stand dismissed.}

¶38

SDi"M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY// rl_

SECTION OFFICER

The Senior Civil Jr dge, Bodhan, Nizamabad District.

¶44

2.e One One CC to CC to SRl. SRl. K. N. /ASUDEVA )URGA PRASAD, Advocate tOpUClREDDY, Advocate tOpUCl

¶45

Two CD Copies

One Spare Copy V

MMK TR \

HIGH COURT

OATED:1411212021

ORDER

CRP.No.629 ot 2021

H'* s iarA <br>/'i't' "r r)
2 I DE0 ?CIpt
<br>

¶54

DISMISSING TH E CIVIL REVISION PETITION

¶55

f.b)

The Nizam Sugars Limited (Nsl) v. Edamakanti Laxma Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Nizam Sugars Limited (Nsl) v. Edamakanti Laxma 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

Mrs. Ann Catherine Helen Decruz Vs Mr. T.Manipal Reddy

Kunja Bhaskar Vs Korsa Mallaiah

Nalladi Manasa , Danda Manasa Vs Nalladi Vijay Kumar

The Nizam Sugars Limited (Nsl) Vs Edamakari Laxma Reddy

Jeedipally Laxmi [Died] Medak Dist and 2 Others Vs Chelmeda Narayana, Medak Dist and 2 Others

Smt. Rehana Begum Vs Shaik Samad