Telangana High Court
CRP/5767/2010 of Nazema Begum, Vs Cheeme Venkatamma, on 29 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 5767 of 2010 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 03.11.2010, passed by the Junior Civil judge, Parigi, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 305 of 2010 in O.S. No. 13 of 2004, filed by the
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.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAC.R.P. No. 5767 of 2010
O r d e r:
This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 03.11.2010,passed by the Junior Civil judge, Parigi, Ranga Reddy District,dismissing the application in I.A. No. 305 of 2010 in O.S. No. 13 of2004, filed by the petitioner-defendant No.2, praying to appoint anAdvocate Commissioner, for making local inspection of the land in anextent of Acs. 2.00 in Sy.
No. 39, Thimmaipally village, Doma Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,and noting down its physical features and report as to whether it isagricultural land or covered by houses.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.2 andperused the order under revision.
Admittedly, respondent No.1-plaintiff filed the suit in the year2004 for perpetual injunction, restraining the petitioner and respondentNo.2 from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suitschedule property. Respondent No.1 claimed that the land isagricultural, while the case of the petitioner is that it is covered byhouses. Since respondent No.1 claimed that the suit scheduleproperty is agricultural and she is in possession and enjoymentthereof, it is for her to prove the same by adducing evidence. Thepetitioner, except stating that the land is not agricultural, has notassigned any reason why Advocate Commissioner should beappointed. If according to the petitioner, the suit schedule property isnot agricultural, but is covered by houses, it is for her to prove thesame by adducing necessary material. The petitioner, filed the present application after the evidence of the plaintiff is over, and while thematter is coming up for evidence of D.W.5, and if even before theevidence on her side is completed, she cannot seek appointment ofAdvocate Commissioner. However, if at this stage, the request of thepetitioner to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for local inspectionand noting down the physical features and ascertaining the nature ofthe land is acceded, it would amount to collection of evidence for thepetitioner through Advocate Commissioner, which cannot bepermitted. Hence, no fault can be found with order under revision,passed by the Court below, refusing to appoint an AdvocateCommissioner.
For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever tointerfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisoryjurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordinglydismissed. No costs.
Dated: December, 2010IBL
_____________
N.V. RAMANA, J.