Back
K. MANMADHA RAO
Kamma Suresh Babu S/o Venkateswarlu – Appellant
Versus
Manne Venkata Seshaiah S/o Shri Ramulu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed for advocate commissioner appointment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background dispute between neighbors over property access. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments on trial court's error regarding evidence. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. counterarguments on necessity and legality of appointment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. court emphasizes local investigation importance. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. revision petition dismissed; trial to proceed. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
ORDER :
1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order, dated 15.02.2023 passed in I.A. No. 46 of 2019 in O.S. No. 515 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole (for short “the Court below”).
2. The impugned I.A. No. 46 of 2019 in O.S. No. 515 of 2018 was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 26 Rule 9 and Section 151 of CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the plaint plan property, to note down the physical features, to take photos, to take measurements if necessary as per work memos submitted by the parties and to submit a report.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners and the respondents are neighbours. There is a Rasi Nadava (passage) in between their properties and
The Advocate Commissioner's report is non-adjudicatory and serves only to assist the court, not to bind it in decision-making.
An Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to verify physical features of property but not to ascertain possession in a suit for injunction.
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
