Telangana High Court
CRP/3499/2011 of B. Yedukondala Raju Vs Shava Krishna on 30 December 2011
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3499 of 2011 Date: 30.12.2011 Between: B.Yedukondala Raju ..... Petitioner And: Shava Krishna .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Padmanabha Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Sri J.Prabhakar The Court made the following: ORDER: This
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3499 of 2011
Between:
Date: 30.12.2011
B.Yedukondala Raju
And:
..... Petitioner
Shava Krishna
.....Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Padmanabha Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Sri J.Prabhakar The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated18.07.2011, in I.A.No.137 of 2011 in O.S.No.69 of 2009 onthe file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge,Khammam.
The petitioner is the defendant in the said suit filedby the respondent for perpetual injunction in respect ofopen house site admeasuring 266.66 square yards(222.95 square meters), Plot No.11 in Sy.No.294 ofKahanapuram Gram Panchayat, Khammam UrbanMandal, Khammam District. It is the pleaded case of thepetitioner that he and his wife have purchased an extent ofAc.3.07 guntas in Sy.No.294 through a registered sale deed and that, therefore, he wants the physical features ofthe entire Ac.3-07 guntas of land in Sy.No.294 to be notedby the Advocate-Commissioner. The lower Court, after adetailed hearing of both the parties, dismissed the said I.A.The lower Court observed that the extent of Ac.3.07guntas shown in the petition schedule is not the suitschedule property and that, in any event, appointment ofan Advocate-Commissioner at the instance of thedefendant is wholly unnecessary and that, more over, therespondent having filed the suit, the burden lies on him toprove his case and it is not the duty of the petitioner hereinto prove in the negative.
In my opinion, the lower Court has not committedany jurisdictional error in dismissing the said I.A. filed bythe petitioner. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition isdismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil RevisionPetition, interim order, dated 27.08.2011, is vacated andC.R.P.M.P.No.5012 of 2011 filed by the petitioner forinterim relief is dismissed as infructuous.
__________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J30[th] December 2011DRDR