U. Manohar, v. B. Adilakshmamma,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1278 of 2016 ORDER:

Assailing the order dated 20.01.2016 passed in I.A.No.329 of 2014 in O.S.No.894 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. The facts in issue are as under:

The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and delivery of possession of plaint schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner which was allowed by appointing one Dinakar as an Advocate-Commissioner for location of the plaint schedule property. After visiting the site and measuring the same, the said Commissioner filed a report before the trial Court.

The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. would show that since the suit was filed for permanent injunction and delivery of possession of plaint

schedule property and as the location of the property placed vital role for deciding the lis in the suit, the petitioner/2nd defendant filed an application seeking appointment of an advocate-commissioner to measure the plaint schedule property with reference to Exs.B1 to B5.

A counter came to be filed opposing the appointment of another Advocate-Commissioner on the ground that earlier Commissioner took the help of the surveyor and got the property measured, in which event, the application is un-warranted.

After hearing both parties, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the said application. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed urging the same grounds which are referred in the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically urged that since the earlier Advocate-Commissioner measured the lands pursuant to the documents filed by the plaintiff. It is absolutely necessary to identify and measure the property in terms of the documents filed by the petitioner/2nd defendant.

A perusal of the material on record, more particularly the order under challenge goes to show that earlier the Advocate-Commissioner took the assistance of Mandal Surveyor and in the presence of both the

counsel got the land surveyed and measured. It is to be noted that the earlier Advocate-Commissioner was appointed to inspect the suit schedule property and also to note down the physical features including the stage of construction made in the plaint 'C' schedule property. The impugned order revealed that AdvocateCommissioner visited the site twice and with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor measured the schedule property, noted down the physical features and submitted his report. Though the argument which is sought to be advanced is that the petitioner could not supply his documents as they were in back at the time of visiting of the Commissioner, but the same was rejected holding that the copies of the documents could have been furnished to the Commissioner at the time of his visit. No reasons are forth coming as to why the copies of the documents could not be furnished to the advocatecommissioner then. However, the fact remains that earlier advocate-commissioner measured the land with the help of surveyor apart from noting down the constructions in the schedule property.

In view of the report of the Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No.994 of 2002 and having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2002, I am not inclined to accede the request made by the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is

dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petition, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 28.06.2016 gkv