PULIPALPULA SRINIVAS Vs. GANGULA VASANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order in I.A.No.870 of 2009 in O.S.No.105 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge's Court, Ramannapet, dated 01.05.2010.

(2.) THE defendants filed the petition for appointment of a Commissioner alleging that after they acquired ownership and possession on purchase, they were using throughout the ways shown in red colour and blue colour in the sketch map annexed to the written statement and the said ways were left by their vendors as public roads which are in existence and use since then without any other alternative way for the defendants to reach their lands. THE existence of the roads and identity of the land covered by the roads were sought by the defendants to be brought on record through the report of an advocate Commissioner to be appointed for noting such physical features.

(3.) THE defendants are before this court being aggrieved by the said order and contended that the appointment of a Commissioner would only help in correct and comprehensive adjudication of the questions in issue making clear all the questions in controversy. THE existence and use of the roads alone is sought to be verified through the Commissioner and when both the parties consent for the same, the best evidence, which could have been placed before the court, could not have been prevented by the dismissal of the application.