HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4380 of 2014 DATED 28th November, 2014.
BETWEEN Kampelli China Narsaiah ….Petitioner And Mateti Lingaiah …Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4380 of 2014
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 05.11.2014 passed in I.A.No. 774 of 2014 in O.S.No. 424 of 2012 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial. The said interlocutory application was filed seeking reopening of the suit for the purpose of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property more particularly existence of a compound wall dividing the southern boundary in between the suit schedule property and house of the respondent/defendant.
The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and he filed the aforesaid suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property admeasuring to an extent of 242 square yards in Sy.No.364. Earlier, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for the purpose of recording location of the suit schedule property. Though the said Advocate Commissioner visited the suit schedule property along with Mandal Surveyor, the Mandal Surveyor expressed his inability to measure the land by dividing Sy.Nos.364 and 361. Further it is to be seen that evidence was completed in the suit and it is coming up for arguments and that arguments were advanced on behalf of the defendant on 05.11.2014 and the case was posted to 12.11.2014 for arguments of the plaintiff and at that stage the present application was filed. It is apparent that the present application was filed nearly after two years of appointment of Advocate Commissioner on earlier occasion. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the report of the then Advocate Commissioner, he could have filed an appropriate application for appointment of another Advocate Commissioner long back. Since the suit is coming up for arguments, the present petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the order under revision passed by the trial Court dismissing I.A.No.774 of 2014 in O.S.No.424 of 2012 does not call for any interference by this Court.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 28th November, 2014.
Msnrx