ALLADI PRABHAKAR RAO Vs. GOWLIKAR LEELA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision is filed by the petitioners who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.118 of 2008 challenging the order dt.4/1/2022 of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon in I.A.No.428 of 2008 in O.S.No.118 of 2008 dismissing the application of the petitioners filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction and along with the said suit, the petitioners have filed two I.A.s. One petition was for interim injunction against further construction by the respondents/defendants and the same was allowed. The other petition was I.A.No.428 of 2008 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. He submits that I.A.No.428 of 2008 was pending for a long period and the same was taken up for hearing in the month of January, 2022 and was dismissed by order dt.4/1/2022, against which the present CRP is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an Advocate Commissioner was sought to be appointed to note down the existing physical features obtaining on the suit lane, location of the pillars raised in the suit lane by their length and breadth, which will be helpful to the Hon'ble Court to decide the real dispute in controversy between the petitioners and the respondents. It is submitted that written statement has been filed by the defendants admitting the existence of pillars and also about the stopping of construction pursuant to the interim injunction granted by the Court. However, with regard to the suit claim of lane, there is a denial by the respondents and therefore, it is pertinent that an Advocate Commissioner should be appointed to visit the suit spot and examine and give a report with regard to the existence of the suit lane. He submitted that the lower Court has erred in dismissing the Application without observing that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents by the appointment of Advocate Commissioner for noting down the existing physical features of suit property. In support of his contention that Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to cause local inspection of the disputed land and to help the Court to render complete justice to the parties, he placed reliance upon the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.6896 of 2005 dt.10/3/2006 in the case of Mallikarjuna Srinivasa Gupta Vs. K. Sheshirekha 2006 (3) ALD 362.