Disposed

State Teachers Union- T.S v. Doddapaneni Narasimha Rao

Telangana HC11 Jan 2024CRP/1439/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against trial court's order appointing an Advocate Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC to note physical features, survey, demarcate and fix boundaries of suit property. The High Court held the order went beyond the relief sought in the application, which was only for noting physical features, set it aside, and remitted for fresh orders confined to noting physical features.

What the court decided

AI extract

State Teachers Union- T.S Vs Doddapaneni Narasimha Rao — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CIVIL REVIS ION PETITION NO: 1439 OF 2022

¶6

Petition under Article 222 of the constitution of lndia, against the order Dated 11.04.2022 made in l.A.No.4 ot 2021 in t.A.No.3 ot 2021 in o.s.No.9i of 2021 on the file of the Principal Junior civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sathupally.

¶7

Between:

¶8

state Teachers Union- T.s, represented by Madygula parvatha Reddy s/o Rami B"9dy.^{aged 57 yrs Occ Head Master R/o H.No5--Z-tSa,SfU Brra;;;'Ki.r,iirOu,} Hyderabad

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETIT|ONER/PET|T|ONER

¶11

Doddapaneni Narasimha Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao aofed 40 vr Occ. Agriculture and Employee Rt/o Chandrupafla Village, Kaliur Mandal,-^-- Khammam Dist

¶12

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶13

Jella srinivas Rao, s/o venkateswara Rao aged 4s yrs occ . nggricurtuieZno Business R:/o Kallur Village and Mandal, Kha-mmambist.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS

¶15

ANO:1OF20 22

¶16

Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all the proceedings in the suit o.S.No 9112021, on the file of prt. Junior civit Judge - cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sathupally.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. D.JAIPAL REDDY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents : Smt D.VENKATA PADMAJA

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA

¶21

CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.1439 OF 2o.22

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by petitioner aggrieved by the order dated I 1.O3.2O22 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2O2l in I.A.No.3 of 2O2l in O.S.No.91 of 2O2l on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally. By the impugned order, the petition liled by the Petitioner/ Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 1 under Order 26 Rule 9, read with 151 of C.p.C. was allowed and Sri Sk. Dargavali, Advocate was appointed as an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features, survey, demarcate and fix the boundaries of the suit schedule property with the help of the concerned surveyor. The fee of the Advocate Commissioner is fixed at Rs.3OOO/- payable by the petitioner/ defendant No.1 directly under acknowledgment to the Court. The Advocate Commissioner was directed to execute the warrant issuing prior notices to both the parties and the both parties and the counsel were directed to assist the Advocate Commissioner in execution of warrant and the Advocate Commissioner was directed to file a report.

¶24

t^{t -'.J}

¶25

¶26

.sKs.J CRP No.l139 of2022

¶27

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the trial Court.

¶28

The facts of the case are that the

¶29

Petitioner/ Respondent No. 1/ Defendant No. 1, filed the I.A. No. 4 of 2021 in I.A. No. 3 of 2027 in O.S. No. 91 of 2O2¹ under order 26, rule 9 r/w 151 of CPC praying to appoint an advocate Commissioner to direct him to note down that physical features after issuing notice to either parties or their counsels or to the both of them atrout the^{date of} execution of warrant and entertain the work memos if^any given by them and to draw a rough sketch with all his observations and submit report.

¶30

The trial Court has allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner, herein hled^the present revision.

¶31

Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

¶32

The learned counsel for the revision^petitioners submitted that impugned order passed^{in I.A. No. 4 of 2O2l} in I.A. No. 3 of 2O2l in O.S. No. 91 of 2O2l^rs much^beyond the relief sought in the application.^{He further submits that}

¶33

¶34

-sKs"/ CRP No.l439 of )022

{

I t

I !

the petition was filed for noting down the physical features of the scheduled property which in by itself is not maintainable. He also submits that the court below passed the impugned order which was not even prayed by the petitioner therein and directed the Advocate Commissioner to survey, demarcate and fix the boundaries.

¶40

7 . Having regard to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, it is observed that I.A. No. 4 of 2O2l in I.A. No. 3 of 2O2t in O.S. No. 91 of 2O21 was filed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to direct him to note down the physical features of the suit schedule properfy, but, the Court below while allowing the petition appointed Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features, survey, demarcate and frx the boundaries of the suit schedule property with the help of the concerned surveyor. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the order passed in the said application is beyond the relief sought for therein.

¶41

Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order passed in I.A. No. 4 of 2027 in l.A. No.3 of 2O2l in O.S. No. 9l of 2021, on the file of principal

¶42

¶43

¶44

s(sJ CRP No. t139 of2022

¶45

Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First^Class, Sathupally.. The court concerned is^{directedto pass fresh} orders directing the Advocate^{Commissioner,only to the} extent to note down the^{physical features of the suit}

¶46

schedule property, following^{the due procedure of law'}

¶47

Miscellaneous^{petitions, if any pending, shall stand}

¶48

closed.

¶49

¶50

SD/-N.SRIHARI ASSISTANT GI AR //TRUE COPY//

¶51

SECTION OFFICER

¶52

To,

¶53

The Prin.cipal Junior civir Judge cum Judiciar Magistrate of First crass at Sathupally

¶54

One CC to Sri D.Jaipal Reddy, Advocate (OpUC)

¶55

One CC to Smt D.Venkata pidmaja, Advdcate (OPUC)

¶56

Two CD Copies kt 6/'-'\r

I l I

HIGH COURT

SKSJ

DATED:1 1tO1t2O24

ORDER

{ $6 9T4T6 o
q {
q
1 3 riB 2$2[ (-:
o)o L' ,]
{
k It

¶63

CRP.No.1439 of 2022

¶64

fliilffiT30"J,1, E CRP

¶65

v4"
T

State Teachers Union- T.S v. Doddapaneni Narasimha Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

State Teachers Union- T.S v. Doddapaneni Narasimha Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. R.Madhavi Latha Vs S.Surendra Babu

Mrs. Nagulapalli Aruna Vs Taidala Mahender

Raja , Radha Ramulu Vs Panala Prabhakar Reddy

M/s. Geetha Enterprises Vs Sardar Baldev Singh Sokhi

M/s. Shreya Homes Vs Kondakal Sai Reddy

L.Chander Vs Kapil Chits (Hyd) Pvt. Ltd.