SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(AP) 847

G.YETHIRAJULU
Parepally Satyanarayana – Appellant
Versus
Vutukuri Meeneder Goud – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate appeared:
Counsel for petitioner: Mr. K. Narasimha Chari
Counsel for respondents: Mr. B. Shiva Kumar

JUDGMENT

This Revision Petition is filed by the first defendant against the order, dated 29-07-2004 in I.A.No.1097 of 2004 in O.S.No.302 of 2004 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, regarding the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from evicting him from the suit premises otherwise than in due course of law and for mandatory injunction directing the second defendant to break open the lock put to the suit premises. After ordering urgent notice in I.A.No.1090 of 2004 for the same relief, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1097 of 2004 under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to break open the locks of the suit premises to record the physical features of the said premises and to ascertain facts of the possession of the suit schedule property. The lower Court passed the following order: "Heard. In view of the circumstances stated in the affidavit in support of the petition, Mr. K.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate is appointed as Commissioner to make local inspection of the premises and to break open the lock provided p














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top