RACHAKONDA MALLAMMA Vs. RACHAKONDA RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners against the order dt.18/11/2022 passed by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet in I.A.No.433 of 2022 in O.S.No.62 of 2010.

(2.) O.S.No.62 of 2010 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent seeking permanent injunction against the defendants/petitioners. After filing of the written statement, the defendants filed I.A.No.433 of 2022 under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Sec. 151 CPC with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for localization of the subject matter of the suit and for its measurements with the help of Mandal Surveyor and also to note down its features. The Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet vide order dt.18/11/2022 has dismissed the I.A. and therefore, the present C.R.P. is filed by the defendants in the suit.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants, Sri Gandyadapu Rajesham, submitted that the plaintiff has sought permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, but the boundaries mentioned in the suit are not correct and the boundaries mentioned therein are the boundaries of the defendants' property. It is submitted that the same has been submitted in the written statement filed by the defendants/petitioners herein and since it was felt that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is necessary for inspection and localization of the subject property and also to note down the physical features thereof, an application for the same was filed by the defendants. It is submitted that the lower Court has dismissed the application by observing that the petition is filed only to drag on the matter without any bonafide reason and that the petitioners did not specify the boundaries in their written statement and it is for the first time that the petitioners are alleging that their land is bounded by such and such property and the basis for such contention is a simple unregistered sale deed which did not contain any boundaries. It is submitted that the Court has dismissed the application without verifying the material available on record. In support of his contentions that appointment of Advocate Commissioner is necessary for localisation of the property, he also placed reliance upon the following two decisions.