Smt. Nathi Bai Soni v. Smt. Putta Manemma
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
oF TELANGANA rN rHE H|GH ".rTf39otJ*toBlilE FRIDAY THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER '''"i-ir,ro iHousnuo AND TwENTY FouR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISIO N PETITION NO 37730F 2024 Petition under Article 227 ol lhe Constitution of lndia' praying that in the circumstances stated in th; gro;;t'fii"J nereln"tne' Hiqh Court may be pleased to set aside the order o""o'ri. iiu. iiir+ fr.9"a in.r nI uo.aaz or 2024in o s' No 1202 ol 2024on ft'e titeit'in" iniiition"r District Judoe Ransa Reddy district at L B. Nasar, Hvderau"o i'il""oi'J""qu-"ntif oit'it" t -n No +az of 2024' with I""tt tn.rdn",t, in the interest of justice'
u"Yfr:"**l?:,'il'B?ji ti: l1': r',| 5;#'B:""1' '*?ili'i!3'u'oB'"'"jn"?""*'"8' HYderabad- 500 034 , [*:ra3i,:S]",,3 " [:Xi R:" lej: SiL ill]l'?jft:',i lB'I t3!3,?'fi :l J'-li t3 : HYderabad'
' " PetitionersiRespondents/Defendants AND Smt. Putta Manemma, Wo' Narsimhulu (died' per LR No 3) Smt. Putta Bhagyamma, Wo Narsimha' Aged about 47 yea-,s' house wife' i:'11'3i:t[il"o)f, l?i',]fi ;f"1"t3,'""#''{:il?'#lt"'i'ffi ""ft S!"; J District, (RepbyttheirResogt4;3:"o"Iiri?,'!l?Ji-"3]e,:ln!33:1,3:r"fr TT i8:?iil,i,1fi il'?i[iT33ffi irJt"il"'"ilrri'"g'aReddvDistrict' Smt. Anandi Devi' Wo S. P. Loya, Ag,ed about 66 years, occ House Wife, Hilil i,if z-lse,' Razzakpura' Hvderabad a bout 7 3 vea rs'
3:" B, y, iSXJ'ft iJsi i3:', ii:^ift :?,1*, ji'?f' )'?oo5''1?t " Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs
*:. ';,{ IA NO 't oF 2024 Petition underr section J51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the.affidavit fired in support of the petition, ihJ frgh court may be preased to stay 3lljrtlur-qrg"eedings pursuant to Order datea iZ.0B. 2024'passeO-, i n. rv" 487 ot 2024 in o. S No. 'r202 of 2024 on tne RL ottne r .Additionar oistrici .luoge, Ranga Reddy distrir:t at L. B. Nagar, pending tn" ii*f Oi*po"ri;ii#;;;:r" CRP.
Counsel for the Petitione(s):Sri. M.srinivas Counsel for the Respondent No.2. Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, rep. Mr.K.Krishna Mohan The Court made the tbllowing: ORDER
x THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.3773 of 2Q24 ORDER:
Heard i\4r.M.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners representing Mr-K.Krishna Mohan, learned counsel appearing and lVIr.ll. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel for rhe rcsponclent No.2. Perused the material availablc on record 2.
The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the pctitioncrs undcr Article 227 ol the Constitution ol Tndia assailing thc ordcr dated 27 08.2024 passed irr I A No 487 ol 2a21 in O.S.No. 1202 ol 2022 by the I Additional District 'Judge, Ranga Redclv District at L.B.Nagar (for short 'the trial court')' 3.
\/ide thc said rmpugr-red order, the trial court has allou'ed a petition iiled b1 the plaintiff seeking for lhe appointment ol an advocale commissioncr to identifl' thc suit schedule propert]' oLlt o[ surve,r. Nos.440 33 I. at Gagan Pahad Village. 4.
Learncd Scnior Counscl appearing along u'ith Mr.N4 Srinivas. lcartrcd counscl for lhe petitioners strongl,t' contenclecl that as of nor.r' the plaintilfs have not been able lo establish beftrrc tl're trial court his title and right over the suit scheclule propert,v and u'ithout even prima facie establishing thc:
right and t.tle over the suit schedule propert\,. The plaintiff has moved this petition for appointment of 1n advocate commlsstoner rvhich is totall_v unu,arranted and utlnecessarv at this stage 5.
Having heard the contentions put forth on eirher side and on perusal of record, this court is of the oprnion rhat the trial court r.t,hilr: allorr,,ing the said application u as of t hc view that since sun,e_v Nos.4.10 and 331 ol Gagarr pahrrd Village, is a large chunk ol land and the suit schedule properrty is only.a small portion of said propert)., lor convenience of al1 the parties including t.ltr: court, thc identilication of tLre land would give more claritl in the process of proceedings ,"vrth rhe suit. In the said process, an application for appointment r,f advocate commissioner has been allow,ed at thc behest of the pe titioner/ plaintiff. This Court does not fin,l ar_rv substantive prejudice that is going to be caused to the rrght ancl interest of the petitioner, partrcularlv, r.r,hen perusal of the impugned order *,ould clearl.'
r reflect that the said report .f. thc coremissioner would onll' fcrr the assisting ol the court in decidir-rg of the suit. Further, the trail court has also in its rmpugr_red order menLioned a u.ord of cautton so far a.
I with regard to the possession or any other aspects relaled to the suit, which irself goes to shou that the conditions/ objections which the learned Senior counsel has raised are still to be considered in the course of trial itsell All that has been assigned by appointmcnt of an advocatc commissioner is to identily the suit schedule propert]' ln the tli'o survey numbers This Court does no[ find anv merits in the instant revision petition and lhe instant civrI re','ision petition deserves to be and is accordingly rej ected Consequentll'. miscellaneous petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed sd,.esgSffiBREA,EFRRX / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, t The l Additional Distrrct.Judge' Ranga Reddy district at L B' Nagar' ' Hfi;;b;; (with records if anY)
2. One CC to SRl. lvt srinivas Advocate IOPUC]
3. One CC to Sri E.Madan mohan rao' Advocate [OPUCI
4. Two CD CoPies w
HIGH COURT l DATED:13t12t202,1 zz2:.--::r 61 i're sr"i;>.\.
,4 4; \ /i,J* !,' i.'
[,,\,, '\* .\.- 20 fEB 2W
ORDER
CRP.No.3773 of 202,i --i:.--.:-;-.- CIVIL REVISION PETI'fION IS REJECTED c-d* ft^ 6tr