Back
B. S. BHANUMATHI
M. R. Pradeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
S. Nanda Kishore – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dtd. 25/11/2021, dismissing the petition in I.A.No.231 of 2020 in I.A.No.586 of 2018 in O.S.No.49 of 2015 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to direct the advocate commissioner who was already appointed in I.A.No.586 of 2018 to revisit the petition schedule property to note down whether the properties in Sy.Nos.74-2, 75-3, 75-5 and 75-2 forms a single plot or not, with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, Lepakshi, with reference to FMB sketch and to file report.
2. Heard Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitionerplaintiff and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the respondentdefendant. The revision petitioner is the petitionerplaintiff and the respondent herein is the respondent defendant.
3. The petitioner filed the suit for declaration of the right, title and possession over the suit schedule property and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant, his men etc., from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the fo
A court can re-entrust a warrant to a commissioner for further investigation and report on important aspects required.
The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is unnecessary when sufficient evidence exists to determine the facts in a partition suit.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
