K. KESAVA Vs. S. GOVINDA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order dtd. 8/6/2018 in I.A. No. 130 of 3018 in O.S. No. 25 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court at Dharmavaram, appointing an advocate- commissioner to visit and note down the physical features of the suit property and to submit his report along with a plan, the present Revision is filed by the petitioner - plaintiff.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. He vehemently submits that allowing the I.A. for appointing an Advocate-Commissioner, pending consideration of the Application filed by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction is nothing but allowing collection of evidence at the instance of the parties to the suit, which is impermissible. The learned counsel fairly submits that there are number of decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court both justifying appointment of Advocate- Commissioner and also taking contra view. Hence, he submits that the suit having been filed for permanent injunction, the local inspection that is ordered through the Advocate-Commissioner would be nothing but gathering evidence and if the same is allowed, it would be contrary to the settled principles and that parties to the suit have to succeed based on the evidence that may be adduced in the Court.

(3.) It is the specific case of the petitioner - plaintiff that the suit schedule land is an agricultural land and the respondents - defendants are the neighbouring land owners and they are trying to encroach into his land and in those circumstances, he sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants. It is also his specific assertion that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and further, his name is entered in the revenue records as such.