Allowed

Addula Gopal Reddy v. Kodiganti Shanker Reddy

Telangana HC11 Sept 2023CRP/2172/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Judgment in a civil revision petition quashes an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The Court held that since the underlying grounds for the appointment were inconsistent sketches filed by parties which the petitioner had no objection to discard, the appointment was unnecessary, and the trial should proceed based on evidence on record.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; order appointing Advocate Commissioner set aside; parties directed to discard sketches and prove their case on record.

Addula Gopal Reddy Vs Kodiganti Shanker Reddy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETIT ro N NO:2172OF 2023

¶6

Petition Under Nlicle 227 constitution of lndia against the Order dated 12.07 .2023 in lA.No. 1 54 of 2018 in lA. No.49212O17 in OS.250 of 201 7 on the file of the Court of the Court of the Hon'ble 1't Additional Junior Civil Judge-cumSpecial Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile Court), Nagarkurnool. Between:

¶7

Addula Gopal Reddy, S/o. Niranjan Reddy, age. 48 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o. Deshitikala Village of Nagarkurnool Mandal, Nagarkurnool District-

¶8

Addula Ramesh Reddy, S/o. Niranjan Reddy, Age. 46 years, Occ. Agriculture, and Business, Fyo. Deshitikala Village of Nagarkurnool Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

¶9

... Petitioners/Plaintiff

¶10

AND

¶11

Kodiganti Shanker Reddy, S/o. K. Prathap Reddy, Age. 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fyo.Desitikala Village of Nagarkurnool Mandal.

¶12

... Respondents/Defandants

¶13

lA NO: 1 QF 2Q23

¶14

Petition under Section 151 C.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay all further proceedings OS No. 25012017 on the file of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge. cum-Special JMFC (Mobile Court) Nagarkurnool.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. A KRANTI KUMAR REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents

¶17

The Court made the following

¶18

ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{M. LAXMAN}

¶20

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2172^{OF 2023}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The present Civit Revision Petition is fited by^the petitioners/ ptaintiffs chattenging the order^passed on 17.07.2023 by the I Additionat Junior Civil Judge^{-cum- SpeciatJMFC(Mobite} Court), Nagarkurnoot District in lA No.154 of²⁰¹⁸ in^{lA No.492 of} 7017 in OS No.250 o'f 2017 appointing the Advocate^Commissioner to note down the^physicat features of the schedule^propertyin rhe tight of the sketches fited by both^parties.

¶23

The grievance of the revision petitioner is that by way of appointing Advocate Commissioner, attempts are being made to bring the evidence, which can onty done by^proper witnesses and not by way of appointing Advocate Commissioner. There is nothing to verify the location so as to warrant the Advocate Commissioner.

¶24

Notice given to respondent was served, none appeared for the respondent.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶26

¶27

..ffi
.>

¶28

The necessity^{of warrantingAdvocateCommissioner was on} account of confticting ctaims^{made with regard to physicat} features referred in two^{sketches fited by ptaintiffs and} defendant. lnitialty, the^{ptaintiffs fited the sketch with regard to} schedute property^{and tater the defendantfited another sketch'} Then the apptication is fited^{to note down the physicalfeatures} of the schedute^{propertyon the basis of two sketches,which are} not in agreement.^{Learned counselfor the appetlants/revision} petitioner submitted that he^{has no objectionto ignore both the} sketches and trial shalt be^{proceededon the basis of pteadings} and evidence on record,^{not by appointingAdvocate} Commissioner to cotlect^{the evidence.The foundationfor fiting} the apptication is on^{accountof sketchesfited by both the parties} onty. When sketches^{are discarded,there is no requirementto} appoint Advocate^{Commissioner; therefore, the revision petition} is tiabte to be attowed.

¶29

Accordingty, the Civit^{RevisionPetition is allowedsetting} aside the impugned^{orderpassed by the I Additionat Junior Civil} Judge -cum-^{Speciat JMFC (MobiteCourt), NagarkurnootDistrict} to appoint Advocate^{Commissioner. The} rtria[^{Court is directedto}

¶30

¶31

---=-7

¶32

discard both the sketches and they shaLt form part of record and the same shatt be ignored. The parties are directed to prove their own case basing on the evidence to be adduced by them. There shatl be no order as to costs. Miscetlaneous apptications if any shatI stand closed.

¶33

.SD/.T.JAYASREE AssrsrANr RE$SrRAR //TRUE COPY// L

¶34

SECTION OFFICER

¶35

To,

¶36

The 1't Additional Junior Civil Judge.cum-Special JMFC^(Mobile Court) Nagarkurnool. 2. One CC to SRl. A KRANTI KUMAR^REDDY Advocate [OPUC] J. Two CD Copies. YJR

Prac.,,

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110912023

ORDER

CRP.No.2172 of 2023

(r-re srAr4.
(
rr t i\ t! ?023 oz
(,) D
ft
l llFs-i'rr'

¶43

ALLOWING THE C.R.P.

¶44

PFl( 2,,>l'

Addula Gopal Reddy v. Kodiganti Shanker Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Addula Gopal Reddy v. Kodiganti Shanker Reddy

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

Mekala Sanjanna ( died) Vs Kudukuntla Kousalya

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mukka Virupaksham and 7 Ors.

Malluri Revathi , Kalyani and 4 Ors. Vs Mukka Virpaksham and 3 Ors.

Bojja Radha Bai and 4 others Vs P. Prasad and 2 others

M.Balamani and 2 Ors. Vs Mr.a.Mahesh Kumar and Anr.

Mohd. Parvez Vs A.P. State Electricity Board