Back
NYAPATHY VIJAY
Isarapu Simhachalam – Appellant
Versus
Sidha Nagarathnam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts leading to the civil revision petition regarding property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding the necessity of advocate commissioner. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on the importance of truth in judicial proceedings. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. final ruling allowing the civil revision petition. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The present civil revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 24.07.2023 in IA No.150 of 2021 in OS No.181 of 2016 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, East Godavari District.
2. Petitioners are the defendants. The suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the suit schedule property. The petitioners filed above IA No.150 of 2021 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the petitioners filed written statement as well as additional written statement. It is their submission that his father has constructed thatched shed in the year 1992 in about Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.333/2 within the boundaries of the plain
Procedural laws should prioritize the pursuit of truth over mere evidential collection, allowing for proactive measures like the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.
The court allowed the petition for Advocate Commissioner, determining its necessity for property inspection, not solely for evidence collection.
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
