IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE NINTH OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO CRP.No.1309 of 2014 Between :
Muppa Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, Aged : 72 years, R/o.Chityal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
…Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant Vs.
Sama Jana Reddy @ Jani S/o. Gopal Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ : Private Employee and Agriculture, R/o.Chityal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
…Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S. Lakshma Reddy Counsel for Respondent : Sri M. Venkat Ram Reddy The Court made the following : [order follows] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CRP.No.1309 of 2014 JUDGMENT :
This Revision is filed challenging the order dt.14.03.2014 in I.A.No.479 of 2012 in OS.No.73 of 2012 (for short, ‘the impugned order’) on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, at Ramannapet. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking a perpetual injunction against the petitioner in respect of Acs.13.00 gts. of dry land in Sy.No.396/EE of Chityal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
3. In the written statement filed by defendant, the petitioner/defendant pleaded that the boundaries shown in the plaint schedule to the above land are false and incorrect; and that the plaintiff is not in actual possession or enjoyment of the said land.
4. Along with the suit, the respondent filed IA.No.302 of 2012 seeking temporary injunction pending suit, against the petitioner restraining him from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the subject land. He also filed I.A.No.479 of 2012 seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of Sri Krishna Rice and Oil Mill, Chityal which is in Sy.No.396, in which according to petitioner, the plaint schedule property was wrongly shown by respondent.
5. By a common order dt.14.03.2014, the Trial Court allowed IA.No.302 of 2012 and dismissed IA.No.479 of 2012. It is stated that a CMA has been filed challenging the order in IA.No.302 of 2012 before the District Court, and it is pending.
6. In the impugned order, the Court below observed that the boundaries to the plaint schedule land and the boundaries to Sri Krishna Rice and Oil Mill are entirely different; that they are not adjacent to each other; and, therefore, it is not necessary to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner.
7. Challenging the order dt.14.03.2014 in IA.No.479 of 2012 in OS.No.73 of 2012, this Revision has been filed by the petitioner/defendant.
8. Heard Sri S. Lakshma Reddy, counsel for petitioner; and Sri M. Venkat Ram Reddy, counsel for respondent.
9. The counsel for petitioner however contends that unless an Advocate-Commissioner is appointed, the incorrectness of the boundaries in the plaint schedule cannot be established.
10. The petitioner/defendant has not sought the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for the purpose of localising the suit schedule property/the property which he claims belongs to him. He has only asked for the Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of Sri Krishna Rice and Oil Mill premises in Sy.No.396 of Chityal Village. Even if an Advocate- Commissioner is appointed for the said purpose it would not the aid the petitioner in proving that the boundaries given by the plaintiff in the plaint schedule to the plaint schedule property are wrong.
11. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Court below and consequently this Revision is dismissed. No costs.
JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Date : 09-06-2014 Ndr/*