M V RAMUDU Vs. B BAYAPA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Tadpatri in I.A.No. 124 of 1998 in O.S.No. 63 of 1998 dated 16-11-1998.

(2.) The petitioner is the defendant. The plaintiff filed O.S.No. 63 of 1998 for permanent injunction. He also filed an interlocutory application for appointment of Commissioner for noting down the physical features of the suit-schedule property relating to the existence of the alleged stone wall and the pipe line.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that after the Commissioner was appointed ex parte by the lower Court, the Commissioner did not give any notice to him and he submitted the report ex parte without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. When an objection was raised before the lower Court, the same was rejected and, therefore, he submits that the order of appointment of Commissioner was illegal. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was not available when the notice was sought to be served by the Commissioner and that service of notice was effected on the brother of the petitioner. Moreover, during the inspection process the son of the petitioner was also present and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the petitioner to contend that no proper notice was issued to him. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.