( 1 ) HEARD Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, the Counsel representing the revision petitioners and Sri Defendant. Kodandarami Reddy, the counsel representing the respondent.

( 2 ) THE matter is coming up for admission. This Court ordered notice before admission on 20-09-2005 and interim stay was granted for a limited period. In view of the fact that the Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondent - plaintiff, the C. R. P. itself is being disposed of finally.

( 3 ) THE petitioners, the defendants in O. S. No. 141/2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Lakkireddipalle, filed I. A. No. 284/2005 in o. S. No. 141/2002 for appointment of Commissioner for the purpose of measuring and locating S. No. 277 and suit schedule property as per boundaries with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor, Galiveedu and file his report along with sketch and photos if necessary, in the interest of justice. The said application was resisted by respondent - plaintiff by filing a counter and the learned Judge after recording certain reasons dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present C. R. P. is preferred.

( 4 ) SRI V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, the learned Counsel had taken this court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application and would maintain that when there is serious dispute about the location of the plaint schedule property and when specific stand was taken that the boundaries are not the correct boundaries in relation to the title deed, it would be always just and convenient if an advocate Commissioner is appointed to locate the same with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the defence taken in the written statement had not been appreciated properly. Further the Counsel would maintain that in the cross-examination of P. W. 1, P. W. 1 himself deposed that he has no objection for appointment of Commissioner to measure the land with the boundaries. In the light of the same and also in the light of the vague counter filed by respondent in the said application, the dismissal of the application for appointment of Commissioner cannot be sustained.

( 5 ) PER contra, the Counsel representing respondent - plaintiff would contend that in the light of the specific stand taken by the defendant in the written statement that the very sale-deed is a nominal one and the relationship between the parties is that of debtor and creditor, this aspect of location of the property would fall into insignificance. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the reasons recorded by the learned Judge and would maintain that the dismissal of the application is justified in the facts and circumstances.

( 6 ) HEARD the Counsel on record.

( 7 ) ON a perusal of the impugned Order, the application was dismissed on the main ground that the suit schedule property is only in sy. No. 277-Al, Acs. 3-00 cents out of Acs. 26. 54 cents but not acs. 0. 95 cents in S. No. 277, Acs. 0. 75 cents in S. No. 282 and Acs. 3. 50 cents in S. No. 283 and the respondent filed the suit schedule property with specific boundaries and extent and hence there is no need to appoint Advocate Commissioner since survey No. 277 schedule property is given in specific boundaries and extent and no prejudice would be causes to the petitioners-defendants if the petition is considered. This is the approach which had been adopted by the learned Judge. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for appointment of Commissioner, stand was taken that the 1st defendant never executed the registered sale deed - Ex. A. 1 in favour of the plaintiff but the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 22,500/- from the plaintiff on condition to repay the rame and the 1st defendant executed a nominal registered sale deed in his favour on to can there of Thus, the relationship between the parties is that of creditor and debtor and not that of vendee and vendor. In the said affidavit it was further explained that the defendan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document