THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2181 of 2014 Between:
Dated 08th August, 2014 Lingala Shiva Kumar Goud and another And Md.Aleem Khan …Petitioners …Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Ms.M.Manjusha Bhardwaj for Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela Counsel for the respondent: ----
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 26.03.2014, in I.A.No.687 of 2012 in O.S.No.334 of 2011, on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
The respondent has filed the above-mentioned suit for injunction simiplicitor against the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that a part of the suit schedule property is situated in Survey No.205 and another part in Survey No.200 and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to the relief of injunction. They have filed I.A.No.687 of 2012 under Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and Government Surveyor to localise the suit schedule property.
The lower Court has dismissed the said application by holding, and in my view rightly, that in a suit for injunction ordinarily, an Advocate Commissioner is not appointed.
Besides the reason for which the lower Court has dismissed the application, I am of the view that the petitioners being the defendants, it is wholly unnecessary for them to seek appointment of an Advocate Commissioner because primary burden is on the respondent/plaintiff to prove his case. Even if the petitioners want to prove their case, they have to do so only by adducing evidence before the Court. An Advocate Commissioner is not appointed for gathering material for being used as evidence by either party.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the civil revision petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.3048 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th August, 2014
VGB