P VEERESHAM Vs. SKP ENTERPRISES SECUNDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 23.01.2012, in I.A.No. 258 of 2010 in O.S.No. 1378 of 2004, on the file of the learned XI Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. O.S.No. 1378 of 2004 filed by the respondents for recovery of possession was decreed. The respondents also filed I.A.No. 258 of 2010 for ascertaining mesne profits by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. By order, dated 23.01.2012, the lower Court has appointed the Advocate Commissioner for recording the statements of the owners and tenants of similarly situated neighbouring properties and submitting a report on the prevailing rents in the vicinity.

(2.) Sri C. Suman, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that since there is sufficient evidence on record showing prevailing rent, there was no need for appointing an Advocate Commissioner. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Orissa High Court in Basanta Kumar Swain v. Baidya Kumar Parida and others, 1989 AIR(Ori) 118in support of his submission that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for collecting evidence.

(3.) Sri R. Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the above submission and argued that under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, the Court is empowered to appoint a Commissioner inter alia for ascertaining the market value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Orissa High Court in K. Raghunath Rao v. Smt. Tumula Jailaxmi, 1988 AIR(Ori) 30