Allowed

Bejawada Krishnamohan v. Manupati Rajaiah

Telangana HC20 Sept 2024CRP/2452/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition setting aside a docket order that appointed an Advocate Commissioner to verify physical features. The court held that in a bare injunction suit, the appointment of a commissioner amounts to collecting evidence for establishing possession, which is the plaintiff's burden.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 08.04.2024 passed in I.A. No. 483 of 2023 in O.S. No. 38 of 2024 appointing an Advocate Commissioner is set aside with no order as to costs.

Bejawada Krishnamohan Vs Manupati Rajaiah — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF^SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V.BHASKARREDDY}

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:^{2452 OF 2024}

¶6

Petition under Article 227 ot the^{Constitutionof lndia aggrieved by the Docket} Order dated 08-04-2024 made^{in l.A. No. 483 of 2023 in O.S. No. 38 of 2024on the} file of the court of the senior civil^{Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at} Peddapalli.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Beiawada Krishnamohan, S/o.^{Late B.V. Chelam,Aged about 64 years, Occ} Buliness R/o. H No^{1-8-4,Waheed Baag, ChikkadapallyCircle-4, Hyderabad}

¶9

...Petitioner / Plaintiff

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Manupati Raiaiah, S/o Balaiah,^{Agedabout q0 ygaE,} Qc9^{PlOger, R/o H.No'} 1-2-34tslBtg: Opp. Nagarapanchayati^{Water Tank, Christian Colony,} Peddapalli, Karimnagar District^{- 505172}

¶12

2 Mr. Vollepu Seetaramulu, S/o.^{Elamanda, Agedabout} ?1-ygrr..^09" ^. . .. Business, R/o. H.No. 1-2-34t5,^{Opp. Nagarapanchayatr WaterTank, Christian} Colony. Peddapalli, Karimnagar^District -⁵⁰⁵¹⁷²

¶13

( R2 Not Necessary PartY )

¶14

...ResPondents / Defendants

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶16

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in^{supportof the petition, the High courtmay be pleasedto} suspend the operation^{of the order and decree dl. 08.04.2024lA No. 483 of 2023 in} oS No. 38 of 2014,^{on the file of Hon'bleseniorcivil Judge-cum-AsstSessions} Judge at Peddapally,^{pending disposal of the RevisionPetition'}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner

¶18

Sri Poftigari Sridhar^ReddY

¶19

Counsel for the ResPondent^No.1

¶20

M/s K Venumadhav

¶21

The Court made the^{followingOrder:}

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.2452 of 2024

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Civil Revision Petition is frled aggrieved by the docket order dated O8.O4.2O24 passed in I.A.No.483 of 2023 in O.S.No.38 of 2Ol4 on the Iile of the Senior Civil Judge-cumAssistant Sessions Judge at Peddapalli.

¶25

The Suit uide O.S.No.38 of 2Ol4 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Peddapally, is liled by the petitioner/ plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their family members, supporters, agents and servants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/ plaintiff over the suit schedule property i.e., land admeasuring 2OO sq.yds., plot No.4 in Sy.No.605,6O6/ 1, situated ar Christian Colony, Mission High School Road area, within the limits of Nagarapanchayat, Peddapalli Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District. In the said suit, respondent herein/defendant No. 1 filed I.A.No.483 of 2023 under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property.

¶26

¶27

CVBR, J c.p 2152 2024

¶28

The case of the respondent/defendant No. I is that the petitioner has purchased the suit schedule property in the layout not approved by the competent authorities and plot numbers were also not given. To verify the physical features of the suit schedule property, defendant No. I has file<t the said I.A. The Court below allowed the said application and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. It has also been observed that the Advocate Commissioner may take assistance of any valuer or licensed surveyor or any expert for execution of warrant.

¶29

It is settled law that in a suit for bare injunction, the parties have to establish their possession as on the date of institution of the suit and seeking appointment of the Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property amounts to collecting evidence to establish the possession of the respective parties in the suit schedule properties.

¶30

Admittedly, the suit is liled for injunction simplicitor and the d petition under order XXVI Rule 9 read with l5I of CpC

¶31

.,)

¶32

CVI]R,^J crp 2452 2024

¶33

was filed by the^{defendant seekingto appoint an advocate-} commissioner^{to note down the physical featuresSince the} burden lies^{on the plaintiff to establish that he is in possession} of the suit^{schedule property as on the date of institution of} suit, the application^{fiied by defendant No'1 seeking to appoint} anadvocatecommissionertonotedownthephysicalfeatureiS misconceived,^{therefore,the order passed in I'A'No 4B3 ol 2O23} in O.S.No.3B of^{2024 on the file of the SeniorCivilJudge-cum-} Assistant Sessions^{Judge at Pedctapalli, is liable to be set aside'}

¶34

Accordingly, the^{CivilRevision Petition is allowed and the} order, dated^{O8.O4.2O24passed inI'A'No'483 of 2023 io} O.S.No.38 of 2Ol4^{by the Senior CivilJudge-cum-Assistant} Sessions Judge^{at Peddapalli,is set aside, ieaving it open to the} parties to establish their^{rights in the suit in accordance with} law. There^{shall be no order as to costs'}

¶35

Miscellaneous^{petitions, ifany, pending shall stand}

¶36

closed.

¶37

Sd/- K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT^REGISRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 TheSeniorCivilJudge.cum-AssistantSessionsJudgeatPeddapalli

¶42

2 One CC to^{Sri PottigariSridhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]} .) J One CC to^{M/s K Venumadhav, Advocate [OPUC]} 4 Two CD Copies

¶43

Vtugh @r,

¶44

HIGH COURT

¶45

DATED:2010912024

¶46

F .. '
f. ;'-.1
( <br>1)
I 7 2 II T 20zr
(
4,.

ORDER

CRP.No.2452 ot 2024

ALLOWING THE CRP

z\ b$

Bejawada Krishnamohan v. Manupati Rajaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bejawada Krishnamohan v. Manupati Rajaiah

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

Chanakya School Vs The State of Telangnaa

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited Vs Competition Commission of India

Sri S. Govardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Dr Panthukala Srinivas Vs Sri Gyara Jagan

B.V. Krishna Polytechnic Vs The State of Telangana

A Venkatesham Karimnagar Dist and 9 Others Vs Prl Secy to R and B Dept Hyd and 4 Others