YERRA AYYANNA Vs. H MARTHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court ordered notice before admission on 31-7-2008 and granted interim stay for a limited period. Though the respondent had been served, none represents the respondent.

(2.) THE Revision petitioner is the appellant in A. S. No. 153/2006 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The petitioner, as plaintiff, instituted the suit O. S. No. 1039/2004 for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant and her men from making any encroachment and making any constructions in the raastha shown as GG1 BB1 in the plaint plan. The specific stand taken by the Revision petitioner/plaintiff is that the said raastha measures 12 links whereas the stand taken by the respondent/defendant is that the raastha is only 10 links. The respondent also had taken a stand that she was not at all constructing any compound wall in the disputed raastha and the construction of the compound wall by her in any way would not obstruct the right of the petitioner to have ingress and egress.

(3.) IT appears that the suit was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the Revision petitioner had carried the matter by way of Appeal A. S. No. 153/2000 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The Revision petitioner/appellant also moved an application I. A. No. 156/2007 under Order XXVI rule 9 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as "code" for the purpose of convenience, praying for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the suit locality as shown in the Schedule and to note down the location of the petitioner's house, respondent's house, the disputed raastha GG1 BB1 and to measure the above said raastha and file his report. In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties - the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application and also the averments made in the counter denying such allegations, the learned IV additional District Judge, Kurnool, having formulated the Point for consideration at para-4 recorded reasons at paras 5, 6 and 7, referred to the decision in Bongu Ramulu Vs. Gudur Narender Reddy, 1998 (3) A. L. T. 473 and Anthony Dass Vs. Sabasthayan, 1996 (1) C. T. C. 472 and came to the conclusion that the relief cannot be granted and accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil revision Petition had been preferred.