SATYAMMA G Vs. R VENKATARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed by the defendants 2,3,6 and 7 in O. S. No. 76 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif, Alamuru, East Godavari District questioning the impugned order dt. 21-3-1996 passed in I. A. No. 883 of 1995, entrusting the warrant of commission to another advocate for inspecting the suit locality and for filing his report.

(2.) The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit and he filed the suit originally in the vacation Court (District Court) at Rajahmundry. He also filed a petition for appointment of Commissioner to inspect the suit locality and file his report. The vacation Court appointed an Advocate of Rajahmundry as commissioner. The Commissioner visited the suit locality and prepared his report and plan and filed it in the Court on 1-6-89. As some more features have to be observed and in view of the objections filed by the present petitioners the warrant was re-entrusted to him for execution and the Commissioner accordingly visited the suit locality second time and filed his report o 13-12-1995 in the Court. Subsequently the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 883 of 1995 requesting the Court to entrust the warrant of Commission to another Advocate at Alamuru contending that the Commissioner who had previously filed his report on two occasions did not carry out the work as per the work memo furnished to him and report submitted by him is not satisfactory and does not consider the points raised by him, that the Advocate who was first appointed as Commissioner is resident of Rajahmundry and he is not interested in carrying out the work entrusted to him and that, therefore, another Advocate at Alamuru may be appointed to inspect the suit locality. The present petitioners who are the defendants 2,3,6 and 7 in the suit opposed the said petition. The lower Court passed interim orders dt. 21-3-1996 allowing the said petition and re-entrusted the warrant to an Advocate at Alamuru for inspecting the suit locality and for filing his report. Questioning the said order the present revision is filed by the petitioners who are defendants 2,3,6 and 7 in the suit.

(3.) Heard both the Counsel.