IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4430 of 2014 BETWEEN Mallela Kotaiah.
... PETITIONER AND Byrapuneni Seethamma (died) and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. I. KOTI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. G. VENKATA REDDY The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This revision is field by defendant No.21 in O.S.No.125 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Podili. The said suit is for declaration of right of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule land and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaint schedule property. The said suit was instituted in 2003 and evidence of the plaintiffs is already over and the defendants have examined D.Ws.1 to 5. At that stage, the defendants filed the present application I.A.No.650 of 2014 seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the plaint schedule with reference to the boundaries given in the plaint schedule and to note the physical features i.e. height of Japan Babul Trees and other trees and bushes in the plaint schedule property and for other physical features.
2. Petitioner herein, who filed the affidavit in support of this application, stated that the Japan Babul Trees and other trees standing in the land are more than 30 years old with a height of about 15 to 20 feet and in order to bring that aspect to the notice of the Court, an Advocate Commissioner was sought to be appointed. The Court below, under the impugned order dated 10.11.2014, has, however, declined to accept the said request on the ground that the trial in the suit is almost over and in any case, an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence. The present revision is directed against the said order.
3. Apparently, the petitioner is attempting to delay the disposal of the suit inasmuch as if at all there was any necessity to file an application of this nature, the same could have been filed long ago when the suit was at the preliminary stage. Keeping in view that the oral evidence of the plaintiffs is over and the defendants have already examined D.Ws.1 to 5, the present application, on the face of it, is highly belated and secondly, as rightly pointed out by the Court below, an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence. Hence, I do not see any error warranting interference of the order of the Court below.
The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 12, 2014 DSK