Dismissed

M.Sridhar Goud v. P.Ashwin Kumar Goud and another

Telangana HC10 Mar 2023CRP/210/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a civil revision petition. The petitioner sought an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to measure disputed structures under Section 151 CPC and Order XXI Rule 9. The Court held that since the extent of construction was undisputed and the respondent admitted it, the appointment would merely protract proceedings and was unnecessary. Consequently, the revi

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing applications for appointment of Advocate Commissioner is upheld. His High Court order dated 25.2.2020 is maintained.

M.Sridhar Goud Vs P.Ashwin Kumar Goud and another — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^2s86 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶6

CIVIL REVISIoN PETITION NO: 210 OF 2023

¶7

Petition under A(icle 227 ot the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 15/1 112022 in 1.A.No. 1357 ot 2022 in O.S.No.163 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the XXVI Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M.Sridhar Goud, S/o M.Srinivasa Rao, aged about 46 years, occ. Business Rl/o 10-6-71, Brundavan Colony, Saroornagar, R.R.District.

¶10

...PETTTtONER (pETtTtONER/pLAtNTtFF)

¶11

AND

¶12

P.Ashwin Kumar Goud, s/o P.Pandu, aged about 32 years, occ. pvt. Employee r/o H.No.2-3-5121135, Bapunagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶13

P.Dinesh Kumar alias P.Dinesh Kumar Goud, S/o P.Pandu, aged about 34 y9ars, Occ Pvt. Employee, FL/o H.No. 2-3-5121135 Bapunagai, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESpONDENTS (RESpONDENTS/DEFENDANTS)

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in OS No.63 of 2013 on the file of the XXVI Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main C.R.P.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J. RAJESWAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V. SRIHARI

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

I ON'ilr-E SRI .lLrSTICE I,. NAVDEN IU,,,

¶21

!ll ''ll.^{RDVISIONPIrTI'llON} No. 2IO of 2a2. \

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard lcart-r 1 counsel lor pctitioner Sri .I Ra r:r;hnar and Icarned counsr:i htr^-e;pond<:nts Srj V Srihai.

¶24

This rer ision is prel'errcd by plaintiff againsr c,r,ders dated 15.11.2022 in I.A I'o 1357 ancl i358 of 2022 in O S No. t 13 :t 2Ot3 on the hle of thc. :XVI Aclditiorral Chief Judge, City O.i l Court aL Hydeabad. LA No. 3.>7 of 20|22 u,as liled undcr Order _{ilVI Rule 9 read with Sectror t51 CPC praving to appojrlt ar Arlvocate Commissioner wrth h.: .,rssisL:rrrcc o1'tr:r:hnic;rl pers,)n [ol. rurtosc of measunng thc cons; rrrc--cd arca ol tlrc scheclulc prr>pcrt,' bearing H No. 2-3-512l 1:15, Bi p-lnagar, Arnbcrltcr. Itydcabad lnd L\ N<: 1358 of 2022 was filcd to r rcp(.n thc suir..

¶25

On due o^-rsidcration ot rr.spcctivc subnrissirt^-r:i, thc trial Court by ordcr dat,:c t.i. - 1.2022 dismisscd said appl:cariorrs,

¶26

Learncd counst:l frrr p<ttitioncr sought to c.cntenrl that appointment oI Adv x]at,t Commissioner is necess.rry t,) as( e rtain extent of constrlrctic , :n:Ldc in tltc sulr sr:hedule builclitrg lrnd if that fact is asccrurinc.d. ir ,,.'or-rld ltc hc:lp[ul in clcciding t]1e sul an,l trial Court ought to havr: , oJrornrcd Advocatc Commissioner.

¶27

As rightl pt>intcci orrt b'lcirrncd counsel lor resl:onrlents, petitioner carlier filt:o L\ l'lo t 1rj2 of 2() l8 under ordcr XX,1 Rulc 9 of CPC pral,ir-rg to app int A.c.lvocil(c Corrrmissioner ancL thc t:ral 3ourt declined to apl)oi:tl l.rc' Aclrrrciitt' Cornmissro[rer ancl i ggr.ieved tl-re reby, C.R.l) Nrt. 12 6 ol 2O l(l u,as fllt:cl.

¶28

On due consideration of the rcspective submissions, this

¶29

Court by order dated 25.2.2O2O dismisscd the revision. Relevant

¶30

portion reads as under:

¶31

"Thus it clearly shows that there is no dispute with regard to the existence of additional structures in question between the parties to the litigation but the dispute is as to who constructed those additional structures, as both the parties are claiming. The Court below was also of the opinion that the appointment of Advocatc Cornmissioner serves no purpose except to protract the proceedings and this Court is atso in agreement with the said finding. Further, the subject interlocutory application re,as filed belatedly aftcr lapse of 7 -r,ears ;f nling of writte; statement without any justifiable ground. When there is clear admission by the respondents/defendants with regard to the additional structur-es standing over the propertj, in questiori, the appointment of Advocate Commissioner does not yield any result. 'lhe decision relied upon by the leamed counsel lor the petitioner/ plain titf vide orders dated O2.O4.rO1S passed by this Court in C,R.P.No.2549 of 2012, is not hetpful to the petitioner/ p lainti f[ since the facts ancl circumstanccs of the case therein are distinguishablc from the case on hand.^'l'hercfore, there is no legal infirmity in the order under challenge. The Civil Revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed."

¶32

Thc reasoning assigned by this Court while dismissing CRP No. 1236 of 2019 is applicablc, since there are no changed circumstances on the primary issue, as rightly observed by this Court in earlier revision. There is no dispute to the extent of construction made. The dispute is as to who has made the said construction, which issue requires considcration in the pcnding suit.

¶33

Further, from the order of the tria[ Court, it is seen that petitioner has not marked construction agreement to show that he was entrusted with the construction of Ground plus three floors and that he has made construction to said extent. The assertion of the petitioner is denied by the respondents and according to respondents said construction was made by them only. The issue as to who has constructed the buitding is a matter which requires consideration by the trial Court and as rightly observecl by this Court in earlier revision, there is no dispute regarding exLent of construction already

¶34

3--

¶35

made. lht:r^tcrrt- Llrcrt. rs no ri'irri,clnallt tO atrrl.)Oirrt AdvOCate Commissioncr-. I do not sce iLn_! (.r i-r)i irr t1rr. r.r -cler <,l thc trial Court warranting i'rtr ri:rr:nc. of this ('r,eLr.t 'l'[r,, rc,lision fails and accordingl5' tlie si,mc is dismissccl IL rs rr.cdlcss to (,llilerve that this order does not . lr ne i. thc s,ay ol pctitioner cstablistLrr Lg tris claim in the pending sr-ri Nc, costs. Misccil:irrr:orrs applrcaLion:; if any pending stand closed.

¶36

Sd/-P. CH. NI\C;ABHUSHAMBA ASSIS]'ANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SF:CTION OFFICER

To,

The XXVI Additi: nal^{Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad}

¶42

One CC to Sri J Rajeswar,^Advocate IOPUCI

¶43

One CC to Sri^V. S'ihari,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶44

Two CD Copies

gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED:10103t2A23

ORDER

CRP.No.21O <t!2023

--":':
,,' ., l'.
lt
5
r [4 ]'lAY2[23 :l
':"1
'i.l ,:

¶52

DISMISSING'I HE CRP

¶53

M.Sridhar Goud v. P.Ashwin Kumar Goud and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sridhar Goud v. P.Ashwin Kumar Goud and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Bloom Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s.Stone Water Info Tech

Mohd. Akber(died) per L.Rs and 3 others Vs Syed Samiullah

Dr K Babu and another Vs K.Mallesh and 8 Others

PachipulusuSubramanyam Vs Smt.C. Chandramma

Mir Asif Ali (Died per LRs 2nd to 7th Petitioners) Vs Md. Abdul Khaleel

T.Shantha Kumar Singh Vs Sri P.Venkateswarlu