KODURU SESHA REDDY Vs. GOTTIGUNDALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.23 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. He filed the suit against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, he filed two applications, one under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C., for temporary injunction, and another being I.A.No.146 of 2001 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C., for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Both the applications were ordered ex parte. The Advocate Commissioner filed a report noting down the physical features, alleged to be of the suit schedule property.

(2.) The respondents filed I.A.No.396 of 2004 for appointment of another Advocate Commissioner. According to them, the appointment of Commissioner by the Court in I.A.No.146 of 2001 was without notice to them and that the petitioner had mislead the Commissioner at the time of noting down the physical features. This application was resisted by the petitioner. Through its order dated 29-10-2004, the trial Court allowed the LA. The petitioner challenges the same.

(3.) Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though it is permissible for a Court to appoint a second Commissioner in relation to the same matter, it can be done only when the earlier report is set aside for the reasons to be recorded, and without taking such a step, a second Commissioner cannot be appointed for the same purpose. He has placed reliance upon certain judgments of this Court.