VISHNUDAS MANGA BHAVANI Vs. V BHASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the stage of admission This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order of the learnec Subordinate Judge at jagtial in I.A. No. 651 / 92 in O.S. No. 14 / 85 dt. 31-12-92 rejecting the said I.A. filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code by the petitioners herein for appointing a Commissioner "to make local inspection of the suit schedule lands and investigate into the existence of two oil engines, two electric motors and four pipelines to irrigate the suit schedule lands and area of the suit lands cultivated and the age of turmeric and chilli crops" etc.

(2.) Notice before admission was ordered in this Civil Revision Petition on 21-1-93. Mr. Y.N. Lohitha filed his appearance for the respondents. On 3-7-93 while directing the CRP to be posted for admission on 12-7-93.1 made it clear that the matter would be disposed of on that day after hearing both sides. Accordingly, I have taken up this CRP for final hearing itself.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the IA observing that normally the appointment of Commissioner to make local inspection would not be refused as it would "help the court to appreciate the evidence properly but that as the application was filed after the evidence on the plaintiffs' side was closed and after the examination of 3 witnesses on the defendants' side, it would amount to "fishing out the evidence" which was not the purpose of Order 26 CPC. The learned Subordinate Judge relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in CRP No. 555 / 92 dt. 27-2-92 (Bandi Alikhja Mohinuddin vs. Basheeruddin). Significantly, the learned Subordinate Judge also observed that the appointment of Commissioner would now establish whether the evidence produced by the parties was correct or not and that therefore, in the circumstances it would amount to collection of evidence and in that view of the matter, dismissed the I.A.