Dismissed

Sze.Yuan Liu v. K. Krishna Reddy

Telangana HC20 Sept 2024CRP/2358/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a Civil Revision Petition, rejected the petitioners' challenge to the trial court's dismissal of an application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The Court held that since the issues regarding land nature and constructions were already pleaded and evidence was completed, no useful purpose would be served by the appointment.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sze.Yuan Liu Vs K. Krishna Reddy — Telangana HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPIEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2358 OF 2024

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition thereby set aside the Orders daled 12107 /2024 passed in l.A.No. l.A.No. 37812024 in O.S.No. 17812022 by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri at Kusaiguda.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sze.Yuan Liu, S/o Late Kim Yen Liu Aged B0 years, Occ. Business R/o H.No. Flat No. 501, Kala Mansion, S D.Road, Secunderabad, Telangana-50003.

¶9

United Hatcheries, Rep by its Managing Partner S.Y.Liu S/o Mt. K.Y.Liu R/o Sy No. 215, Yadgarpally

¶10

Petitioners/Defendants

¶11

AND

¶12

1 K. Krishna Reddy, S/o Late K.Bucchi Reddy Aged about 38 years, Occupation . Agriculture, R/o H.No. 1-5, Yadgarpally, Village, kessara Mandal, MedchalMalkajgiri District.

¶13

2 K.Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o Late K.Bucchi Reddy Aged about 38 years, Occupation. Agriculture, R/o R/o H.No. 1-5, Yadgarpally, Village, kessara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶14

Respondents/Plaitniffs

¶15

tA NO 1 0F 2024

¶16

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.178l2O22 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri at Kusaiguda, pending disposal of above Civil revision Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri. B.Sheshu Kumar

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent. Sri Gaddam Srinivas

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶21

CIVIL REVTSION PETITION No.235⁸ OF²⁰²⁴

¶22

ORDER

¶23

fhis Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the^{petitioners-defendants} aggrieved by the order, dated 72.07.2024,^passed in^I.A.No.378 of 2024 in O.S.No.178 of 2022 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

¶24

Heard Sri B. Sheshu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitir:ners and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶25

.,]

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the respc,ndents-plaintiffs filed the subject O.S.No.178 of 2022 agairst the^{petitioners-defendants} seeking^perpetual injunction, claiming that the suit schedule property is an agricultural^property and that they are in^possession of the same. The^petitioners- defendants filed written statement, wherein the^petitioners have specifically pleaded that they are in^possession of the suit sche,lule property and that they have constructed a^godown and servant quarters in the suit schedule property and it is not an agric:ultural land. In the said Suit, the^{petitionersfiled} the subject

¶27

2 AKS,J C.R.P.No.235a of 2024

¶28

I.A.No.378 of 2024, under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.p.C., seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. But, the said I.A. was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order, dated t2.07.2024, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that the evidence of petitioners and the respondents in the subject Suit was completed. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed and it will help the trial Court for better adjudication of the Suit. But, the trial Court has dismissed the subject I.A. on the ground that appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features amounts to gathering of evidence by the petitioners, which is not permissible. Learned counsel had further contended that the petitioners have filed the subject I.A. to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, but not for gathering evidence. If only an Advocate Commissioner is appointed, the issue as to whether the suit schedule property is an agricultural land or a godown and servant quarters were constructed therein would be decided. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Civil Revision

¶30

3 AI(S,.J C.Fr P.No.2358 oI202,1

¶31

Petltiol by directing the^{trial Court to appoint an Advocate} Commissioner in order to^{ascertain whether the suit schedule} property is an agricultural land or a^{godownand servant quarters} were^(:onstructed therein.

¶32

5.^rfn the other^{hand, learned counsel for the respondentshad} contended that the^{respondentsfiled the subject Suit seeking} perpetual injunction against the^{petitioners. Therefore,burden} lies on the respondents to^{prove that they are in possessionof the} suit s;chedule^property. Further,^{the petitioners filed written} staternent along with certain^{documents beforethe trial Court} pleading that a godown and servant^{quarters were constructed in} the srrit schedule^{property. Therefore,the trial Court has rightly} dismissed the subject I.A. on^{the ground that if an Advocate} Comrnissioner is appointed to^{note down the physicalfeatures, it} amoLlnts to^gathering of^{evidence,which is not permissible.More} so, tlre evidence of the^{respondents is completed and at belated} stage, petitioners filed the subject^{I.A., under Order XXVI Rule 9} C.P.C., seeking to appoint an^{Advocate Commissioner, which is} not permissible. Therefore, there are no^merits in^{the Civll} Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

I I

¶34

.-r-

¶35

4 AKS,J C.R.P.No.2358 of 2024

¶36

i t ,

¶37

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that when the petitioners have specifically pleaded that there is a godown and servant quarters in the suit schedule property, then the burden lies on the respondents-plaintiffs to prove that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. No useful purpose would be Served if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed. The purpose for which the subject I.A. was filed is already pleaded in the written statement filed by the petitioners in the subject Suit and also in the evidence of the petitioners. Now, the respondents have also advanced their arguments in the subject Suit. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the subject LA. preferred by the petitioners. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, dated 12.07.2024.

¶38

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand c!o9e_d.

¶40

Sd/. A,V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶41

SEC ON OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

l.ThePrincipalseniorCivilJudge,Medchal-MalkajgiriatKusaiguda.(with records if anY)

¶44

One CC to Sri.^{B Sheshu Kumar,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶45

One CC to Sri.^{GaddamSrinivas,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶46

Two CD CoPies

zK?

^,d_

l*"

HIGH^(]OURT

DArED 20/09t2024

ORDER

CRP.fJo.235B of 2024

E'
U
3 0 ilil 2021
l+

¶55

CIVII REVISIoN I'L'I'ITION DISMISSI]D.

¶56

A GP,E
"
^' ,/
4K't*

Sze.Yuan Liu v. K. Krishna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sze.Yuan Liu v. K. Krishna 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

Aloth Narendar, Vs Smt. a.Sridevasena

Dacha Janardhan Mahesh Vs Sri Arvind Kumar, IAS

M.a.Devadas, Vs Sri. M.Mahender Reddy, IPS

Sri. N. KeshavaRao Vs Smt. N. v. Lakshmi Alias Lakshmi Srinivas

B. Shekhar Yadav Vs P. Kotaiah

Raees Unissa Vs Shaikh Chand Basha