HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY THIS THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1345 of 2014 Between:
Mudunuri Pullam Raju . PETITIONER And Mudunuri Bapi Raju . RESPONDENT The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1345 of 2014
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 26.03.2014 passed in I.A.No.151/2013 in A.S.No.14/2011 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of the schedule mentioned immovable property against the petitioner/defendant. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal. In the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order 29 Rule-9 of CPC to demarcate the suit schedule property with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor.
The version of the revision petitioner is that the suit property was not in existence and therefore, it necessitated him to file the application to issue commission. The said petition was dismissed by the learned appellate Court holding that it is not necessary for adjudicating upon the dispute between the parties.
The facts which are narrated in the present revision were also well within the knowledge of the revision petitioner at the time when the suit was pending before the learned trial Court, but he did not take any steps for appointment of commissioner. When the suit was decreed granting recovery of possession of the suit property, it is not open for him to contend that there is any ambiguity regarding the property or that the property is not in existence.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the petition was filed only to drag on the hearing of the appeal and therefore was rightly dismissed by the learned appellate Court.
The learned appellate Court rightly pointed out in its order that a commission cannot be issued for collecting evidence by the parties and also there are laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court seeking appointment of the commissioner.
I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned appellate Court warranting interference. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 10.10.2014 Dsr