SIKHA KRISHNA Vs. BUDARTHI JANAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in both the revision petitions is one and the same and the parties are almost common. Therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) These two Civil Revision Petitions are preferred by the defendants aggrieved by orders dtd. 7/12/2022 in I.A. No.2 of 2022 in O.S. No. 143 of 2017 and I.A. No. 2 of 2022 in O.S. No. 144 of 2017, both dtd. 7/12/2022 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudem. By the impugned orders, the applications filed by the defendants under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to locate the suit schedule properties i.e., Plot Nos. 17 and 18, with the help of Mandal Surveyor, in order to ascertain whether they are in Sy. No.802 or Sy. No. 805 were dismissed.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the respondent in C.R.P. No. 59 of 2023, claiming to be the owner and possessor of Plot No. 17 and the respondent in C.R.P. No. 85 of 2023, claiming to be the owner and possessor of Plot No. 18, instituted suits in O.S. Nos.143 and 144 of 2017 respectively, against the defendants, revision petitioners herein, seeking perpetual injunction. According to them, they are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule properties, which are vacant house sites to an extent of 266.66 sq.yds. each in plot Nos. 17 and 18 in Sy. Nos. 805, situated at Paloncha Revenue Village, Paloncha Town and Municipality, Khammam District. The revision petitioners-defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement contending that no survey number with 805, described by the plaintiff, was available in the revenue records of Paloncha. Necessary issues were framed and trial was commenced. The evidence on the side of plaintiff was closed and after adducing the evidence on behalf of defendants, when the matter was posted for defendants' further evidence, I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in O.S. No. 143 of 2017 came to be filed by the defendants seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner with similar relief as sought for in the impugned I.A. i.e., to locate the suit schedule plot with the help of Mandal Surveyor. Upon allowing the said I.A. on 26/7/2022, the matter, at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 143 of 2017, was carried in revision before this Court in C.R.P. No. 1730 of 2022. By orders dtd. 22/9/2022, this Court allowed the revision setting aside the orders of the trial Court in appointing the Advocate-Commissioner with an observation that the trial Court can appoint the Advocate-Commissioner only after adducing the evidence by the defendants, if it considers necessary. Thereafter, the evidence on the side of defendants was closed on 1/8/2022. Hence, in view of the observations made by this Court in the above C.R.P., the defendants, revision petitioners herein filed I.A. Nos. 2 of 2022 in both the suits with the similar relief as sought for in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in O.S. No. 143 of 2017. On contest, the trial Court dismissed both the I.As. with separate orders of even date holding that it is not a fit case to appoint Advocate-Commissioner to undertake localization of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the defendants are before this Court by way of present revisions.