The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.3619 of 2014 Dated 07.11.2014 Between: Smt.Srilakshmi Gorantla …Petitioner And K.Maheswara Reddy and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.K.Ananda Rao Counsel for the respondents: ----
The Court made the following:
Order:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 05.08.2014, in IA.No.897 of 2014 in IA.No.567 of 2013 in OS.No.883 of 2012, on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the lower Court’).
I have heard Mr.K.Ananda Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.
The petitioner filed the above-mentioned suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner has also filed IA.No.5567 of 2013 for temporary injunction. By Order, dated 03-02-2014, the lower Court has allowed the said IA by granting temporary injunction. Thereafter, the respondents filed IA.No.897 of 2014 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to localize the property. The said application was allowed by the lower Court.
From the record, it is evident that there is a dispute regarding the identity of the suit schedule property. Such a dispute can be more effectively resolved if the property is localized. This is precisely what the lower Court has done by appointing an Advocate-Commissioner. However, while doing so, the lower Court ought to have directed the Mandal Surveyor to assist the Advocate-Commissioner, as the Advocate-Commissioner is not an expected to possess expertise to measure the land and localize the suit schedule property. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court appointing the advocate-Commissioner. However, the said order is modified by directing the Advocate- Commissioner to take the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor for measuring the suit schedule property and localizing the same. It is needless to observe that the respondent shall bear the additional expenditure incurred for availing the services of the Mandal Surveyor.
Subject to the above modification of the impugned order of the lower Court, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, CRPMP.No.4925 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 07th November, 2014
LUR