D SUDERSHAN Vs. VANGAPALLY VENKATA RAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners and Sri D. Bhaskara Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents in the civil revision petition. CMP No. 1761 of 2004 was filed to vacate the interim stay granted in C.M.P. No.28796 of 2003 in CRP No.6516 of 2003, dated 12.12.2003. During the course of hearing of the vacate petition, both the learned Counsel made a request to dispose of the C.R.P. itself and hence the CRP is taken up for final hearing and the same is being disposed of.

(2.) The petitioners, who are the defendants in the main suit, aggrieved by an order dated 12 11.2003 made in I.A. No.155 of 2003 in OS No.12 of 2001 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Metpalli preferred the present CRP under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Sri K". Venumadhav, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners had drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 27.8.2001 made in I.A. No.88 of 2001 in O.S. No. 12 of 2001, wherein it was observed that the Court below is satisfied with the self-same report of the Commissioner filed in the suit. The learned Counsel also submitted that the said order was questioned by way of CRP No.5352 of 2001 and the same was dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to avail such other remedies. Inasmuch as the other remedies were not availed by the petitioners, the said finding relating to the satisfaction of the Court in relation to the report of the Commissioner had attained finality. The learned Counsel further submitted that since certain additional facts were brought to the notice of the Court in the rejoinder or additional written statement, as the case may be, the learned Judge had appointed the self-same Commissioner, which cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of this Court in M. Chenna Yenkata Reddy and others v. A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad and others, 1999 (5) ALD 33.