HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.3904 of 2014 Date : 27-12-2014 Between :
M. Raj Lingam ..
Petitioner And D. Srinivas Rao and others ..
Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Mr.T. Venkat Raju Goud Counsel for respondents : --
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 7- 8-2014 in I.A.No.16 of 2014 in O.S.No.293 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioner is defendant No.3 in the above mentioned suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner and eleven others from interfering with their possession of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.16 of 2014 under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect, verify and examine the possession over the suit schedule property by way of local inspection. The lower Court, by the order passed under revision has dismissed the said application.
It is well settled that an Advocate-Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence. As could be seen from the very prayer of the petitioner, one of the main purposes for which he sought for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner is to ascertain the possession over the suit schedule property. A Commissioner cannot be appointed for such a purpose. On considering the reasons given by the lower Court, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for any interference.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.5328 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 27-12-2014 AM