IN THE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD
FRIDAY,
THE TWENTY NINETH (29TH) DAY OF JUNE,
TWO
THOUSAND AND TWELVE
Present:
HON’BLE
SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
C.R.P.No.1840
of 2012
Between:
Naliganti Sarojana
…
Petitioner
And:
Naliganti Benhar & others
…
Respondents
ORDER:
This
civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.08.2011 in IA
No.189 of 2011 in OS No.183 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Warangal, wherein the said application filed by the respondents 1
to 8 herein under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of the Advocate
Commissioner for local inspection and to note down the physical features of the
suit property, was allowed.
2.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
respondents 1 to 8. Perused the record.
3. The
respondents 1 to 8 herein-plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate
possession. The petitioner-5th defendant
along with other defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. During
the course of trial, the plaintiffs filed IA No.189 of 2011 seeking appointment
of the Advocate Commissioner to make local inspection of the schedule property
and to note down the physical features. In the affidavit filed in support of
the petition, the plaintiffs have stated that inspite of grant of status-quodirecting both parties not to change the existing
physical features, the defendants are trying to change the existing physical
features and therefore, it is necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to
make local inspection and to note down the physical features. The trial Court
however by impugned order appointed the Advocate Commissioner to conduct survey
in the presence of both parties to locate the suit schedule property. Such a
direction seeking survey of the suit land and localization thereof is no where
prayed for by the plaintiffs in their application in IA No.189 of 2011. Even
the affidavit filed in support of the application does not refer to any dispute
regarding identity of the property. The only grievance of the plaintiffs is
that the defendants are changing the physical features of the land
notwithstanding the order of status-quogranted
by the Court. The impugned order granting a relief, which is not prayed for by
the petitioners at all is wholly unsustainable. Further, the impugned order
does not disclose any reasons for justifying the appointment of the
Commissioner to conduct survey and localize the schedule land, except stating
that the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner is just and necessary for
better adjudication of the matter. On that ground also, the impugned order,
which is bereft of any reasons justifying the appointment of the Advocate
Commissioner for the purpose of survey and localization is not sustainable. The
impugned order is accordingly set aside. Consequently, IA No.189 of 2011 stands
dismissed. The plaintiffs are at liberty to file appropriate application before
the trial Court if so advised for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner for
appropriate purpose.
4. In
the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand closed.
__________________
G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J
Date: 29.06.2012
bss
No comments:
Post a Comment