G.RAMANAIAH Vs. K.KRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order in I.A.No.140 of 2018 in O.S.No.17 of 2015 dated 29.06.2018, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur, Kadapa District.

(2.) The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.17 of 2015, which was filed for injunction simplicitor and this petitioner contested the suit, mainly on the ground that the suit schedule property belongs to Bobbilala Venkataiah and Bobbilala Chinnabbi, who are the brothers and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since long time and their names were mutated in the revenue records in Sy.No.21/2 of an extent of Ac.2-27 cents in the register holding certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar Office, Chitvel, Kadapa Disrict. Further it is submitted in the affidavit in I.A.No.140 of 2018 that, the respondent was never in possession of the suit schedule property, while reiterating the allegations made in the written statement, requested to appoint an Advocate Commissioner on the following ground extracted:

(3.) It appears from the allegation made above, that the Advocate Commissioner was sought to be appointed to note down the physical features of suit schedule property and the constructions of bathrooms lavatory and trees existing thereon, as the respondent/plaintiff is contemplating the demolish the bathrooms lavatory and trees in the suit schedule property. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter in I.A.No.140 of 2018 denying the material allegations and the Trial Court upon hearing argument of the both the counsel, dismissed I.A.No.140 of 2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed raising a specific contention that the Trial Court did not consider the necessity of appointing an Advocate Commissioner, which enables the Trial Court to decide the suit effectively and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff even if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed. On the other hand, Advocate Commissioner would be helpful to the Court to decide the suit effectively and thus, the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the I.A.No.140 of 2018 and prayed to set-aside the same.