Telangana High Court
Devarakonda Satyanarayana, ... vs Mannempalli Rajamouli, Peddapalli ... on 1 October, 2018
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
C.R.P.No.1881 OF_2017
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel appearing for parties. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.85 of 2016 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli are revision petitioners. The revision petitioners filed I.A.No.8 of 2017 in I.A.No.346 of 2016 in O.S.No.85 of 2016 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate and fix boundaries of 648 sq. yards covered under Ex.A1 to A3 and 977.7 sq. yards covered under Ex.B1 to B3 in Sy.No.678 of Bhoomnagar locality of Peddapalli village with the help of Surveyor.
The respondents herein opposed the prayer stating that the petition is not maintainable as in respect of the suit schedule property, O.S.No.101 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, was decreed. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
The learned trial Judge through the order impugned in the revision while dismissing the prayer held as follows :-
"Perused the record which shows that the plaintiffs filed suit for injunction against the defendants for the land to an extent of 488.88 square yards. After careful perusal of contents of plaint and written statement, which reveals that the defendants filed suit in O.S.No.109 of 2014 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli and the same was decreed. As per the plaint, the land covered under Ex.A1 to A3 and land covered under Ex.B1 to B3 are different which is also observed by the Hon'ble III Additional District Judge, Karimangar, in his judgment, now the petitioner seeking the relief to demarcate and fix the boundaries of land covered under Ex.A1 and A3 and Ex.B1 to B3. In O.S.No.101 of 2014 clearly stated that the land covered under Ex.A1 to A3 and also Ex.B1 to B3 are different, therefore, it is not possible to 2 measure the land covered under Ex.A1 to A3 and the land covered under Ex.B1 to B3 as already given finding by the Hon'ble III ADJ, Karimnagar that the lands are situated at different places. If this petition is allowed, no purpose would be served to the parties. Hence in view of the above discussion the petition is liable to be dismissed."
I have perused the record. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by petitioners/plaintiffs. This Court is in agreement with the reasons recorded by the trial Court. No ground warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.
The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stands closed.
____________ S.V.BHATT, J Date: 01-10-2018 Prv