GUNDRA ADILAKSHUMMA Vs. UPPULURU YELLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners, who are plaintiffs in OS.No. 508 of 2008, feeling aggrieved by Order, dated 17-11-2011, of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, passed in IA.No. 313 of 2009 in OS. No. 508 of 2008. this Court has ordered notice to the respondent on 09-03-2012. Office report shows that notice was served on the respondent but no one entered appearance on his behalf. I have heard Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) The suit is for permanent injunction. The petitioners filed the aforesaid application for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner. On 03-06-2009, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, has appointed one Sri P. Chandra Sekhar as Advocate-Commissioner inter alia for inspection, location, measurement of the entire extent of the suit schedule property with the help of the Mandal Surveyor and comparing the survey numbers with the Field Map Book available with the Mandal Surveyor. A direction was also issued to the Advocate-Commissioner to fix up the boundaries, note down the physical features and take photographs. The said Advocate-Commissioner has returned his warrant on 22-02-2011 by stating that several efforts made by him for execution of the warrant proved futile. The Court below has, therefore, appointed one V. Ramesh Babu, Advocate, as another Commissioner. He has also returned the warrant on 29-09-2011 vide his report wherein he has stated that he personally met the Mandal Surveyor, Proddutur, for fixing up the date of inspection; that the Mandal Surveyor orally informed that he had already visited the petition schedule properties and taken measurement of the same in the presence of the previous Advocate-Commissioner and that unless and until the District Surveyor assists him, he cannot execute the warrant. On considering this report, the lower Court has dismissed IA.No. 313 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner.

(3.) The reasons assigned by the lower Court for dismissing the petition are rather unacceptable. The lower Court has thrown the blame completely on the petitioners by holding that they failed to evince interest in completion of the commission work. Considering the reasons given by the second Advocate-Commissioner, this Court is unable to comprehend as to how the petitioners are responsible, if the Mandal Surveyor has expressed his inability to execute the warrant without the assistance of the District Surveyor.