S ALIMA BI Vs. G MASTHAN REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court while ordering notice before admission granted interim stay for a limited period in these Civil Revision Petitions and the said interim stay is being extended from time to time.

(2.) The Revision Petitioners are Defendants in O.S. No. 248/2003 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed two applications I.A. Nos. 838/2009 and 837/2009 in O.S. No. 248/2003 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool under Order XVI Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short hereinafter referred to as "Code" for the purpose of convenience) to issue summons to the Advocate Commissioner in E.P. No. 357/2005 to give evidence and to mark his report as Exhibit and the other application under ' Order VII Rule 14 r/w. Section 151 of the Code had been filed praying to receive the documents - certified copy of Commissioner's report in E.A. No. 959/2006 in E.P. No. 357/2005 in O.S. No. 248/2003, certified copy of the plan of Town Survey in E.A. No. 959/2006 in E.P. No. 357/2005 in O.S. No. 248/2003, certified copy of lay out plan in E.A. No. 959/2006 in E.P. No. 357 2005 in O.S. No. 248/2003 and certified copy of objection of the Respondent filed in E.A. No. 959/2006 in E.P. No. 357/2005 in O.S. No. 248/2003. In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties i.e., the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application and also the stand taken in the counter affidavit, the learned Judge after recording reasons ultimately allowed the said applications. Aggrieved by the same, these Revisions had been preferred.

(3.) Sri K.V. Raghuveer, the learned Counsel representing the Petitioners/DEFENDANTs would maintain that the learned Judge totally erred in allowing the applications for summoning the Advocate-Commissioner for marking of the Commissioner's report which was appended in E.P. No. 357/2005 even though the said proceedings were set aside by this Court in C.R.P. Nos. 1834 and 3083/2008. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge also totally erred in permitting the reception of documents and by virtue of such permission granted virtually the order made by this Court in C.R.P. Nos. 1834 and 3083 of 2008 had been circumvented. The learned Counsel also further pointed out that even otherwise, when in the light of the dispute relating to the boundaries when clear observations had been made in the Civil Revision Petitions aforesaid and the award of Lok Adalat itself had been set aside and the suit was restored to file, it may that liberty may be given to the parties to move appropriate applications for appt of fresh Commissioner but for marking such report of the Commissioner especially appended in E.P. which in a way indirectly had been challenged in C.R.P. Nos. 1834 and 3083/2008, definitely cannot be sustained.