HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No.3320 of 2013 Date: 21.01.2014 Between:
Mr. Surgeel Bhavani & another … Petitioners And Mrs. Dr.Habeebunnisa Sheema … Respondent * * * HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No.3320 of 2013 ORDER:
The revision petitioners are the defendants in OS No.2241 of 2012 on the file of the Court of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
By the order under revision, the Court below allowed IA No.299 of 2013 filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner, to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property.
Assailing the said order, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the plaintiff had earlier filed IA No.736 of 2012 for the very same relief of appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property and the same was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 20.11.2012 and ignoring the said fact, the order under revision has been erroneously passed by the Court below.
I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent.
On a perusal of the order dated 20.11.2012 passed in IA No.736 of 2012, it appears that the said order has no bearing so far as the relief sought for in the present application is concerned. In the affidavit filed in support of IA No.299 of 2013, it is specifically alleged by the plaintiff that in spite of the temporary injunction granted by the Court in IA No.735 of 2012, the defendants/revision petitioners have been making certain constructions by altering the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff/respondent sought for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner.
Coming to IA No.736 of 2012, which was dismissed earlier, it is observed that the said application was filed immediately after filing the suit and as there was no dispute about the existence of the suit schedule property as well as the measurements, the Court below dismissed the said application observing that there was no need for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.
However, in the light of the allegations made in I.A. No.299 of 2013, the Court below thought it fit to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property, since the same would be essential for determination of the controversy involved in the suit. Such discretion exercised by the Court below, on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, does not warrant interference by this Court.
The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. CRP MP No.4498 of 2013 shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
G. ROHINI, J
Date: 21.01.2014 BSS HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI 89 Civil Revision Petition No.3320 of 2013 Date: 21.01.2014 BSS