P PEDDA SAIDAIAH Vs. T PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein filed O.S. No.70 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Miryalaguda for declaration of his title and injunction over an extent of Ac.4-28 guntas of land in Survey No.706 by contending that the defendants in the suit are trying to encroach upon his land. The petitioner who is D-7 in the suit who owns an extent of 0-10 cents of land in Survey No.700 seemed to have filed an application under Order 26, (for appointment of) a Commissioner to fix up the boundaries of the lands owned by him as well as the respondent herein. But the application was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that the application filed in the year 1993 was not pressed till 1997 i.e., till the stage of arguments in the case. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision petition is filed.

(2.) During the pendency of the revision petition, the other defendants also filed an application seeking permission of the Court to permit them to come on record as petitioners as they are likely to be evicted by the orders passed by the Court below. I felt that they are necessary parties. Accordingly that application was ordered. After notice, the respondent stated at the time of hearing that the petitioners are trying to encroach upon his land and the very fact that the petitioners observed silence having filed an application for appointment of a commissioner till the case has come up for arguments indicates that the petitioners herein are trying the encroach upon his land.

(3.) From the narration it is seen that whether any of the petitioners in the revision petition encroached upon the land belonging to the respondent or the respondent is claiming more than what he has purchased by registered sale deed dated 5-11-1973. The issue can be effectively settled by getting the lands owned by the petitioners as well as the respondent surveyed by the revenue authorities with the help of a village map and also tippons if they are available with the revenue authorities. By doing so, the litigation can be put to an end. But the Subordinate Judge by taking a technical ground dismissed the application which is not in accordance with law. On the other hand, I feel it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the interlocutory applications filed by the parties during the pendency of the suit within a reasonable time. Having failed in discharge of its duty the Court cannot put the litigent to sufference.