IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE TWENTY-SIXTH OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
CRP.No.1775 of 2014
Between :
K. Narasimha Raju, S/o.Sudhakar, Aged : 34 years, Employee, R/o.H.No.40-63, Near SBH, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District. Presently residing at Chennai and another.
… Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiffs Vs.
K. Prabhakar Reddy, S/o.Balreddy, Aged : 53 years, Business, Resident of Pebbair.
…Respondent/Respondent/Defendant Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri K. Vijaya Lakshmi Counsel for Respondent : -
The Court made the following : [order follows] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
CRP.No.1775 of 2014
JUDGMENT :
This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dt.11.03.2014 in IA.No.60 of 2014 in IA.No.199 of 2013 in OS.No.10 of 2013 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the above suit.
2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. On 28.02.2013, the trial passed an order of status quo in IA.No.35 of 2013 in OS.No.10 of 2013 directing both parties to maintain status quo over the plaint schedule property until filing of commissioner report. It is not disputed that an Advocate-Commissioner was also appointed by the court in IA.No.35 of 2013 to locate the plaint schedule property of the petitioners and respondent, and in particular, the plaint schedule property which is an extent of Ac.0.08 gts. in Sy.No.111/1 of Buniyadipur Village of Pebbair Mandal.
3. The Advocate-Commissioner made an inspection in the presence of both parties with the help of a surveyor and filed his report dt.23.09.2013.
4. Thereafter, alleging that the status quo orders had been violated, IA.No.199 of 2014 has been filed by petitioners contending that the respondent was proceeding with constructions in the plaint schedule property and he should be sent to civil prison for the said conduct.
5. A counter-affidavit was filed by respondent denying the violation of the court orders passed in IA.No.35 of 2013.
6. Thereafter, the present IA.No.60 of 2014 was filed to summon the Advocate-Commissioner who had given the report dt.23.09.2013 to give evidence on the aspect of disobedience of the status quo order dt.28.02.2013.
7. This was opposed by respondent on the ground that the Advocate-Commissioner had been appointed in IA.No.35 of 2013 only to locate the petition schedule lands of the petitioners as well as the respondent with reference to their respective title deeds and to find out whether there is any violation and that the Advocate-Commissioner had not been appointed to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule land; so no useful purpose would be served by examining the Advocate-Commissioner.
8. By order dt.11.03.2014, the trial court dismissed IA.No.60 of 2014 holding that the Advocate-Commission had been appointed only for a limited purpose, that he had filed his report and once his purpose came to an end on the filing of the report, it is open to petitioners to file objections to the report. It held that the petitioners are not entitled to ask for his examination in an application filed to punish the respondent for disobedience of the status quo order.
9. Challenging the said order, this Revision is filed.
10. The counsel for petitioners submits that the court below had erred in dismissing the said application; that the Advocate-Commissioner when he visited the plaint schedule properties for the purpose of their identification had noticed the construction activity being done by respondent; and therefore, he ought to be summoned to give evidence in IA.No.199 of 2013.
11. The report of the Advocate-Commissioner has been placed before this Court and the said report makes no reference to any constructions being done in the plaint schedule properties by respondent. Moreover, the Advocate-Commissioner had been appointed only to locate the property of the petitioners and respondent as well as the plaint schedule property (being Sy.No.111/1 of extent Ac.0.08 gts. within the limits of Buniyadipur Village) with the help of Mandal Surveyor. Therefore, the report would pertain only to the location of the plaint schedule property as per the warrant issued to the Advocate- Commissioner. Since the Advocate-Commissioner had not been directed by the court to note down the physical features of the land and he did not mention in his report any construction activity being carried on therein by respondent, no useful purpose would be served by summoning the Advocate-Commissioner to give evidence in the petition filed to punish the respondent for disobedience of ‘status quo’ order. The Advocate- Commissioner can no doubt be summoned to give evidence in regard to the survey (which he did with the help of the Surveyor), but not with regard to the physical features of the land (which he was not instructed to note down by the court).
12. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Court below and the Revision is accordingly dismissed.
13. It is open to the petitioners to prove the disobedience of the status quo order passed by the trial court by any other means/evidence.
14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any in this Revision, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Date : 26-06-2014 Ndr/*