Dr Vardana Sundara Rao v. Syed Mansur Hussain

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4683 OF 2018 ORDER:

Challenging the order, dated 12.07.2018, in I.A.No.63 of 2017 in O.S.No.51 of 2013 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

This is a case where the petitioner-plaintiff sought appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The affidavit filed in support of the application for appointment of advocate Commissioner reads as under:

"3. I submit that my side evidence is completed and the above suit is posted for evidence of defendants side. I submit that the suit schedule site is disputed by the defendants. I submit that for just decision of the case, for appointment of Commissioner is very essential to locate the suit schedule site as per Register Sale Deed, dated 12.03.1986 executed by Dudekula Abdul Rahiman s/o Dudekula Teacher Silar Ahammed in my favour and sale deed of defendants and physical features of suit locality with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor. If the suit schedule site is not located by the Commissioner I will be put to great loss and much injustice will be caused to me."

A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents-defendants opposing the appointment of Advocate Commissioner. Further, it is specifically asserted that the petitioner has no right title over the suit schedule property and his vendor himself has no right to sell it and execute the Registered Sale Deed. The alleged possession of the petitioner over the plaint schedule

property was also denied. It is further asserted that the suit schedule property was in their possession since the date of its purchase and in fact they established a Stone Slab Polishing Unit in the said property and running the unit since 2010. It is further asserted that in the complaint given by the petitioner, on 22.10.2012, to the Station House Officer, Nandikotkur, it is clearly mentioned that the respondents have been running Stone Slab Polishing Unit and the same has also been admitted by the petitioner during his evidence as P.W.1. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the physical features existing in the site. It is further submitted that the I.A.No.

382 of 2014 filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of plaint for adding reliefs of recovery of possession, declaration of title over the suit schedule property and for mandatory injunction, were also refused on 12.04.2016, which order also came to be confirmed by the High Court vide orders dated 12.04.2016 in C.R.P.No.2541 of 2016. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record. It is for the petitioner-plaintiff to establish the right, title and possession over the suit schedule property. As can be seen from the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.63 of 2017 in O.S.No.51 of 2013, there is no specific purpose, which has been asserted for appointment of the Advocate-Commissioner.

Merely because the defendants have denied the petitioner's right and title over the property, the Advocate-Commissioner need not be appointed, as there is no dispute with respect to the boundaries.

the petitioner-plaintiff that the respondents are trying to grab his property, he shall seek injunction prima facie establishing his right, title and possession over the property. As per the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, they have specifically asserted that they are in possession of the property by virtue of the sale deed, dated 23.08.2008. As the purpose for which the Advocate-Commissioner was sought to be appointed being unclear and as it is already admitted by the petitioner-plaintiff himself in cross-examination that the respondents are running Stone Slab Polishing Unit, the issue as to whether the respondents are trying to grab the property of the petitionerplaintiff is required to be decided in the main suit. As no useful purpose would be served by appointing an Advocate Commissioner, this Court finds no fault in the order under revision dismissing the I.A.No.63 of 2017 in O.S.No.51 of 2013. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J Dated:24.10.2018.

Ssv