SEEPALLY THIRUPATHI Vs. REPELLI MALLIKARJUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court ordered Notice Before Admission.

(2.) Sri D. Seshadri Naidu, learned Counsel entered appearance representing respondents.

(3.) Sri T. Jagadish, the learned Counsel representing Sri V. Mehar Sreenivasarao, the learned Counsel for revision petitioners plaintiffs made the following submissions : The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners had placed the report of the Commissioner before this Court and would contend that the point from which, the measurements to be taken, in fact, had not been properly fixed and the procedure to be followed under the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act also had not been followed. The learned Counsel in all fairness would submit that it is no doubt a lapse on the part of the petitioners-plaintiffs in not raising objections to the report of the Commissioner, but, however, this application filed under peculiar circumstances may have to be considered on a different footing, for the reason that what is being prayed for is the scientific investigation for the purpose of actual localization whether the plaint schedule property falls within S.No.224 or 225. The learned Counsel also explained the scope and ambit of "expert investigation" and had placed strong reliance on Section 75(e) read with Order 26 Rule 10(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Hereinafter for short referred to as 'Code'). The learned Counsel would maintain that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, inasmuch as the relief prayed for is for the purpose of localization of the property by a higher authority by way of scientific investigation, it could have been just and proper on the part of the learned Judge to appoint a Commissioner as prayed for instead of dismissing the application The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his contentions.