ISARAPU SIMHACHALAM Vs. SIDHA NAGARATHNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision petition is filed questioning the order dtd. 24/7/2023 in I.ANo.150 of 2021 in O.S.No.181 of 2016 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, East Godavari District.

(2.) Petitioners are the defendants. The suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the suit schedule property. The petitioners filed above I.A.No.150 of 2021 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the petitioners filed written statement as well as additional written statement. It is their submission that his father has constructed thatched shed in the year 1992 in about Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.333/2 within the boundaries of the plaint schedule property. It is their plea that in the thatched shed, they have been placing their cattle, goat, sheep and hens. The Tetaguta Panchayat also levied tax to the said RCC building in the year 2015 and they have been paying the same.

(3.) In the year 2020, the petitioners constructed RCC building consisting of four rooms in about Ac.0.04 cents within the boundaries of plaint schedule property and they have been paying electrical charges to the said connection. It was in that context, the application was filed for the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features in the schedule property. This application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that the appointment is sought for more collection of evidence, hence sought for rejection of the same. The trial Court, vide impugned order rejected the application on contest. Hence, the civil revision petition.