BADANA MUTYALU Vs. PALLI APPALARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt. 18-08-2011 in I.A. No. 173 of 2008 in O.S. No. 448 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judges Court, Srikakulam. The petitioners are defendants in the suit. The suit was filed by the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 'ABCD' marked front yard vacant site.

(2.) Pending suit, I.A. No. 173 of 2008 was filed by the respondent under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC praying for appointment of an advocate commissioner to take measurements of the property mentioned in the registered sale deed dt. 28-02-1963 under which he has purchased the property and to find out whether the 'ABCD' plan marked vacant site is part and parcel of the property mentioned in the said registered sale deed or not with the help of a qualified surveyor.

(3.) The petitioners opposed the said I.A. They contended that at their instance I.A. No. 968 of 2004 was filed for local inspection; that it was allowed and an advocate commissioner was appointed who executed the warrant and filed the report. It was also contended that the respondent had not filed any objection at that time and now he has filed present petition to appoint an advocate commissioner again to harass the petitioners.