Are Gantaiah v. Prathipati Suresh

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 644 and 1030 of COMMON ORDER:

Both these revisions are filed by the defendant in a suit for bare injunction, questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the trial Court in two interlocutory applications.

2. Heard Mr. C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant.

3. As stated earlier, the suit was for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The defendant has already filed written statement contending that the respondent/plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest, and that there is also a discrepancy in the survey number of the plaint schedule property.

4. When the suit was ripe for trial, the petitioner/defendant took out two applications - one

in I.A.No.712 of 2015 and another in I.A.No.380 of 2015 praying for (1) appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit schedule property with the help of Mandal Surveyor and to ascertain the survey number with the help of revenue records, and (2) summoning the Tahsildar, Guduru, to cause the production of the documents relating to ROC No.603/190, respectively. Both these applications were dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the prayers are not feasible of being granted.

Aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before me.

5. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, the suit was for a bare injunction. It is for the plaintiff to prove that he is in possession. It is also for him to prove the identity of the property.

6. No Commissioner can be appointed at the instance of the defendant to collect evidence to show who is in possession of the property. If at all there is any discrepancy in the document of title on the basis of which the suit is filed, it is always open to the defendant to take advantage of the same and seek disposal of the suit, but the defendant cannot

collect evidence either to support his case or to have the case of the plaintiff rejected. Hence, both these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in these revisions shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J 3rd June, 2016 cbs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.644 & 1030 of 3rd June, 2016 cbs