J SATYASRI RAMBABU Vs. A ANASUYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 13-6-2005 in I A No 731 of 2005 in IA No.486 of 2005 in OS No 149 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Nizamabad

(2.) The brief facts are as under The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit, which was filed seeking a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant/revision petitionerfrom interfering with the suit schedule land The suit schedule land was described as Ac 2 20 guntas situated in Sy No 226 and another extent of Ac 0 18 guntas situated in Sy No 227 of Sarangapur village of Nizamabad District Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs filed I A No.486 of 2005 seeking temporary injunction. It is not in dispute that initially the Court below grantedad-interiminjunction. Subsequently on behalf of the defendant a memo dated 7-5-2005 was filed undertaking that he will not interfere with the property of the plaintiffs and that he would carry out his activity in the property as authorized by the Government. The said undertaking was placed on record and accordingly I.A. No.486 of 2005 was closed. Subsequently the plaintiffs filed I.A. No.731 of 2005 under Order XXXIX, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying the Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule land. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application it was stated that contrary to the undertaking given by the defendant, he has been digging trenches and filling them with gravel for laying railway line in the suit schedule land. It was alleged that the defendant in violation of the orders of injunction has employed large number of workmen, and attempting to change the nature of the suit schedule land as it exists on the date of filing of the suit. In the circumstances it was pleaded that unless an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to record the physical features of the suit schedule land, the plaintiffs stand to suffer irreparable injury. Though the said application was opposed by the defendant denying the allegation that he was interfering with the suit schedule land the Court below by order dated 13-6-2005 allowed the application and appointed an Advocate Commissionerto note down the physical features of the suit schedule land. The Advocate Commissioner was directed to inspect the suit schedule land after giving notices to both the parties and submit his report on or before 23-6-2005. The said order is under challenge in this Revision Petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.