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

2020 Supreme(AP) 315

M.VENKATA RAMANA
Korada Murali – Appellant
Versus
Srinivasa Sahu – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V.V. Satish

ORDER :

M. Venkata Ramana, J.

1. Heard Sri V.V. Satish, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the order of the learned Trial Judge in appointing an Advocate Commissioner in terms of Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC.

2. The suit is filed for relief of permanent injunction to restrain the first respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. It is a vacant site alongwith a RCC building in an extent of Ac. 0.23 cents including front yard vacant site. The petitioner also sought a temporary injunction in the suit and this petition is stated to be pending. A written statement has already been filed by the first respondent and now the stage of the suit is for settlement of issues.

3. At that stage, the first respondent filed the above petition not only to inspect the plaint schedule property but also to measure the same with reference to certain sale deeds. Such effort is stated to be for better appreciation of the matter in dispute and that it would assist the Court properly. The petitioner resisted appointment of Commissioner mainly on the ground that the attempt is only to collect evidence and when it is the burden of

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