Back
A. SANTHOSH REDDY
Duggempudi Bala Show Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Durgamraju Narasimha Rao – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the civil revision petition. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding necessity of appointing advocate commissioner. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's assessment of trial court proceedings. (Para 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's reasoning on appointing advocate commissioner. (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. final order and directions from the court. (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER :
1. This civil revision petition is filed to set aside the order dated 08.12.2015 passed in I.A. No. 1045 of 2015 in O.S. No. 16 of 2009 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Warangal, wherein and whereby, the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 and 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) by the revision petitioners was dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
3. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5-Plaintiffs filed suit in O.S. No. 16 of 2009 before the I Additional District Judge, Warangal for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the defendants i.e. respondents 1 and 2 and the revision petitioners herein. The trial in the suit was also completed and the matter is posted for arguments.
The need for appointing an Advocate Commissioner is essential in property boundary disputes to ascertain factual details.
The court emphasized that an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to document property features in injunction suits if property identity is disputed, regardless of possession.
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
