Prla Narsimulu v. Porla Lingappa

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4877 OF 2017 ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. At the stage of admission, this Revision Petition is disposed of. In a suit for injunction filed by the respondent, the petitioners filed I.A.No.188 of 2017 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the suit property. The trial court dismissed the said petition on the observation that the crops allegedly raised by petitioners can be proved by showing the revenue records and not by appointment of Commissioner. At the threshold, it must be mentioned, the trial court cannot be found fault nor its order can be said to be perverse or illegal in the light of the law laid down by the apex court as well as several High Courts including this High Court that an Advocate Commissioner can not be appointed for collection of evidence.

For instance, the court cannot appoint Commissioner to verify which party was in possession of the property or who raised the crop etc., which have to be independently established by the concerned party who pleads that he is in possession of the property. In the instant case, under the guise of getting appointment of Commissioner, the petitioners want to note down that in fact they raised the crop. Such a fact cannot be recorded by the commissioner which is against the law.

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO Dated 8th November, 2017.

Dvs

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4877 OF 2017 Dated 8th November, 2017.

Dvs