GOLLA GODA ALIVELAMMA Vs. S VENKATESHWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.S. No. 141 of 2004 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur against the respondents in relation to an immovable property. She obtained an order of temporary injunction against the respondents. The respondents filed LA. No.306 of 2004 under Order 18 Rule 18 C.P.C. requesting the Court to undertake a personal inspection. It was alleged that taking advantage of the order of temporary injunction, the petitioner herein is making constructions to prevent access to a public well. The petitioner resisted the application stating that she has not undertaken any construction around the well and that she has taken steps only to prevent interference by the respondents herein. An objection was raised as to the very maintainability of the petition.

(2.) On a consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, the trial Court found that it was not a case for undertaking inspection by the Court itself. However, through its order, dated 14.10.2004, the Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to make local inspection of the suit schedule property and to submit a report. The same is challenged in this revision.

(3.) Smt. Madhavi Devi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the inspection to be undertaken by a Judge in exercise of powers under Rule 18 of Order 18 C.P.C. is very rare and it is only in exceptional cases, that too, when the Court itself is satisfied that such an inspection can be undertaken. She also contends that the power under the said provision is to be exercised by the Court on its own accord and the parties to the proceedings do not have any right to insist on such inspection. She urges that once the trial Court did not find it to be a fit case for undertaking personal inspection, the only consequence ought to have been to dismiss the application and there did not exist any justification for appointing an Advocate Commissioner.