Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Jala Swamydas And Anr. vs Jadani Sumayun Raju on 24 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(5)ALT646
ORDER P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar, representing Sri D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners.
2. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that at the time of execution of warrant, the petitioners, the defendants in the suit, were not present for certain reasons, which had been explained by way of memo and in the said circumstances, the application in I.A.No. 665 of 2004 in I.A.No. 441 of 2004 in O.S.No. 71 of 2003 was moved for appointment of another commissioner and hence, the same is maintainable. The learned Counsel had also taken this Court through the reasons recorded by the learned Judge and would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
3. The matter is coming up for admission. It is not in serious controversy that for a particular purpose, a commissioner was appointed and for the self-same purpose, another application for appointment of second commissioner had been filed. The ground raised is that for certain reasons the revision petitioners/defendants were not present at the time of inspection and hence, prejudice has been caused to them. It is needless to say that the relief prayed for in the application is a misconceived one. May be, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the memo or the objections raised by the revision petitioners, they could have prayed for re-entrustment of warrant to the self same commissioner by affording proper opportunity to be present at the time of inspection. If they are, so, aggrieved of the nature of the report, which had been filed, it is needless to say that the petitioners are entitled to raise the appropriate objections also in this regard. The consistent view always has been that without setting aside the report of the first commissioner, a second commissioner for the self same purpose cannot be appointed.
4. The under noted decisions may be referred to in this regard.
Kunhi Kutti Ali v. Mohammad Haji, AIR 1931 Madras 73; Satyanarayana v. T Jalaiah, ; Kushal Rao v. Shaym Rao, ; M. Chenna Venkata Reddy v. Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Hyderabad, ; Vemuri Siva Venkata Koteswara Rao v. Jasti Bala Rama Krishna, ; R. Vijayudu v. N. Ramachandra Reddy, .
5. In the light of the clear legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever, and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. It is needless to say that the revision petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate applications in the light of the observations made by this Court supra if they are so advised.