Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 412
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Mohamooda Begum – Petitioner
Versus
Rajula Rajaiah – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 2843 of 2024
Decided On : 13-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mirza Rizwan Alibaig.
IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the dismissal of an application to appoint a Senior Advocate Commissioner, emphasizing the necessity of cooperation with appointed officials and the lack of sufficient grounds for reappointment.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 151 – Interlocutory Application – Dismissal of application to appoint Senior Advocate as Advocate Commissioner – The trial Court dismissed the application on grounds of previous dismissals and lack of cooperation from parties – The petitioner failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the revision. (Paras 5, 9, 10)
(B) Advocate Commissioner – The role of Advocate Commissioner is to execute the warrant as ordered by the Court, and objections must be considered before appointing another Advocate Commissioner. (Paras 5, 10)
Facts of the case: The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction regarding land and sought to appoint a Senior Advocate as Advocate Commissioner due to alleged bias and improper execution of duties by the initially appointed Advocate Commissioner.
Findings of Court: The trial Court found no merit in the petitioner's claims and dismissed the application, stating that the Advocate Commissioner had acted within the scope of his duties and that the petitioner had not cooperated.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Advocate Commissioner executed the warrant properly and whether the trial Court erred in dismissing the application for a Senior Advocate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial Court's dismissal was justified as the petitioner did not provide sufficient grounds for appointing a second Advocate Commissioner and failed to cooperate with the initial appointment.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. Samala Ravendar, learned counsel representing Mr. Mirza Rizwan Ali Baig, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff.
2. This revision is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff challenging the order dated 13.03.2019 passed by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in I.A. No. 89 of 2019 in I.A. No. 401 of 2017 in O.S. No. 85 of 2008 dismissing the application filed to appoint a Senior Advocate as Advocate Commissioner.
3. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit vide O.S. No. 85 of 2008 against the respondents-defendants for perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property i.e. open land admeasuring 651.66 square yards in Survey No. 1368, situated at Subashnagar Locality, Karimnagar Town. During pendency of the said suit, he has filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No. 401 of 2017 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct survey and demarcate the land in Survey Nos.1359 and 1368 of Karimnagar Revenue Village with the help of Mandal Surveyor by GPS System, if require to take assistance of Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records. The same was allowed on 30.08.2017. Advocate Commissioner was appointed. He has executed warrant and filed first report on 23.10.2017 and another report on 07.06.2019. The petitioner has filed objections dated 17.06.2019 and additional objections dated 19.06.2019 to the said reports. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No. 89 of 2019 under Section-151 of CPC to appoint a Senior Advocate as an Advocate Commissioner and direct him to take aid to maintain law and order in case if third parties interfere at the time of carrying out survey work, on the following grounds:
(i) The Advocate Commissioner acted against the spirit of warrant.
(ii) The Advocate Commissioner filed a false report stating that no boundary stones were found despite the Mandal Surveyor found the same.
(iii) The action of Advocate Commissioner is biased, unilateral and colluded with respondents.
4. The aforesaid application was resisted by the respondents by filing counter contended as follows:
(i) The Advocate Commissioner visited the site by issuing notices to both the parties and submitted his report.
(ii) The petitioner is creating troubles and went on filing petitions one after the other i.e. I.A. No. 352 of 2018 filed to replace the Mandal Surveyor with the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records; I.A. No. 531 of 2018 to modify the order in I.A. No. 401 of 2017 to replace the Advocate Commissioner by appointing another advocate without proper reason; I.A. No. 675 of 2018 to seek a direction to follow the orders to take help of the Mandal Surveyor and the police to maintain law and order, and the said petitions were dismissed on 26.10.2018, 26.10.2018 and 24.12.2018, respectively;
(iii) There is sufficient evidence to decide the disputed questions involved in the suit.
(iv) An Advocate Commissioner was appointed in O.S. No. 1 of 2009 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar to demarcate the lands in Survey Nos. 1359 and 1368 and the Advocate Commissioner executed the warrant with the help of the Assistant Director of Land and Survey and reported that the plot therein is part of Survey No. 1359. The plot in the said suit is towards further east to the present boundary show.
5. Vide impugned order dated 13.03.2019, learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, dismissed the said application holding as follows:
(i) A similar petition was filed vide I.A. No. 531 of 2018 and the same was dismissed.
(ii) Pursuant to the orders dated 30.08.2017 in I.A. No. 401 of 2017, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. He did not file report and the order was modified thereby directing the Advocate Commissioner to adapt GPS System. Later, both the parties did not evince any interest to see that the warrant is executed so as to enable the Advocate Commissioner to file his report by extending co-operation to him.
(iii) It is well settled law that unles
