HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.3867 of 2014 Date : 6-12-2014 Between :
Bolla Ranadhir Reddy ..
Petitioner And Koya Sunitha and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Mr. Goli Viplav Reddy Counsel for respondents : --
The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 8- 7-2014 in I.A.No.530 of 2013 in I.A.No.364 of 2013 in O.S.No.127 of 2013 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad, at Hayathnagar.
The petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. He has also filed I.A.No.364 of 2013 for an injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property. In the said application, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.530 of 2013 under Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC for appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner to note the physical possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule plot and the physical possession of the respondents with regard to plot bearing No.9 and also to note down the extent of the compound wall between both the plots with photographs. The lower Court dismissed the said application mainly on the ground that an Advocate-Commissioner can be appointed to note down the physical features of the property, but not for noting down the persons who are in physical possession of the property.
Mr. Goli Viplav Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the lower Court has failed to consider the latter part of the prayer in the I.A. wherein it was prayed that an Advocate Commissioner may be appointed for noting down the existence of compound wall between the plots.
A perusal of the prayer reveals that it supports the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it contains two parts, namely, the first part relating to noting down the physical possession of the parties and the second part relating to noting down the existence of compound wall. The lower Court has however not considered the second part of the relief prayed. In this view of the matter, while confirming the order of the lower Court to the extent of the first part of the prayer, namely, refusal to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner for noting down the physical possession of the parties, the petitioner is left free to file a fresh application in the suit at the appropriate time for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for noting down the existence or otherwise of the compound wall over the suit property.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.5277 of 2014 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 6-12-2014 AM