Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Budarthi Janaki vs Sikha Krishna And Another on 22 September, 2022

Reddyshetty Srihari vs Surineni Chakradhar Rao on 15 October, 2025

The document - 1B (ROR) dated 07.10.2020 reflects the suit land is inherited. However, the respondent-petitioner claims that he has purchased the property. The Court below failed to appreciate the position of law that, if it comes to a conclusion to resolve the controversy involved and unable to decide the matter based on the material evidence on record, if the Advocate Commissioner's assistance is required to resolve the controversy involved in the suit then only the appointment of Advocate Commissioner either Suo moto or basing on the application filed by either parties be considered, the stage is not yet reached, and there is no prima facie case in favour of the respondent-petitioner. Learned Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) A.Gopal Reddy Vs. Subramanyam Reddy and another 1, (2) Dammalapari Satyanarayana and Others Vs. Datla Venkata Ramabhadra Raju @ DVR Raju and another 2, (3) Arvind Kumar Agarwal Vs. M/s. Legend Estates (P) Ltd. 3, (4) Akula Mallappa and Others Vs. Gangishetty Bikshapathi and Others 4, (5) Vasupalli Danayya Vs. Pinnmaraju Srinivas 5, (6) Rani Suhasini Vs. Md. Abdul Mateen 6, 1 2013 (4) ALD 347 2 2006 (4) ALD 675 3 (2015) 2 ALD 206 4 2022 SCC OnLine TS 3099 5 2023 6 ALD 614 6 2023 SCC OnLine TS 2757 6/23 BRMR,J CRP_2226_2025 (7) Rachakonda Mallamma Vs. Rachakonda Ramesh 7, (8) Budarthi Janaki Vs. Sikha Krishna and Another 8.
Telangana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Panga Yadagiri vs Resoju Pabhucharana on 10 April, 2023

In Budarthi Janaki's case (4 supra), the plaintiff therein filed the suit for injunction in respect of house site admeasuring 263 sq.yards in Plot No.17 in Sy.No.805, situated at Paloncha Revenue Village, Paloncha Town and in the said suit, the defendants had taken a plea that Sy.No.805 was not in existence and therefore, sought for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to locate the schedule property with the help of Mandal Surveyor. In that context, the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court held as under:
Telangana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A A Reddy - Full Document

Kona Govinda Rao vs Popuri Samar Sen on 26 December, 2024

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as there is ambiguity in the boundaries of the suit schedule property, in view of the IA filed by the respondent herein in OS.No.274 of 2002 vide IA.No.153 of 2002, wherein, survey was conducted and fixed stone pillars and if the Advocate Commissioner is appointed in the present case, it would serve the purpose. Basing on the said IA.No.153 of 2002 in OS.No.274 of 2002, the trial Court not considered this application stating that petition is not maintainable in the eye of law. It is further submitted that if the Commissioner is appointed, it will not cause any prejudice to the respondent, as such, requested the Court to consider his application. The petitioner relied on a Judgment in 'Budarthi Janaki Vs. Sikha Krishna and Another' 1, it was held that "13. As such, it is considered fit to allow the revision case setting aside the order of the trial court in I.A. No.1 of 2022 in O.S. No.143 of 2017 appointing advocate commissioner at this stage. Only after defendants adduced their evidence, if the court still considers Dr.GRR,J necessary to appoint an advocate 1 2023 (1) ALD 165 (TS) 5 SKS,J C.R.P. No.164 of 2023 commissioner, then the court below can appoint the advocate commissioner as the same would not amount to gathering of evidence.
Telangana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1