The absence of an existing interim order precluded the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to collect evidence regarding property alterations by the respondents.

ORDER :

RENUKA YARA, J.

Heard Sri Basanth Kumar Soni, learned counsel representing Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Kale, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the entire record.

2. The present revision is preferred aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 11.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.1174 of 2022 in O.S.No.596 of 2010 on the file of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (‘trial Court’), wherein application was filed to appoint Advocate Commissioner for noting down the physical features of the suit schedule property and the nature of construction carried out by the respondents in violation of the interim orders existing in favour of the revision petitioner herein.

Brief facts/Background facts:

3. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner herein filed a suit for declaration and consequential injunction and specific performance of agreement of sale dated 19.04.2008 and the said suit is currently coming for recording of evidence and at that stage, the revision petitioner has filed I.A. under revision and other I.As. seeking various reliefs. The I.A. under revision has been filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner under Section 75 of the CPC for recording physical features of the suit schedule property. The case of the revision petitioner is that there is an interim order granted by the trial Court i.e., to maintain status quo restraining the respondents from creating any third party charge by way of alienation or execution of lease deed or induction of tenants etc., whereas, the respondents are adding or altering the nature of the construction and that the revision petitioner came to know that respondent No.5 is creating third party charge on the suit schedule property by carrying out certain construction works.

4. While so, the case of the respondents is that there is no interim order in force and therefore, there is no cause of action for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. Further, it is the case of the respondents that since there is no status quo order in force, there is no case for contempt of Court on account of violation of the order of the Court and therefore, the petition to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to collect evidence with respect to violation of the Court’s status quo order is ill-conceived.

5. Upon considering the case of the revision petitioner and the respondents, the trial Court held that I.A.No.25 of 2018, wherein status quo was granted was closed and without reopening the said petition, the revision petitioner herein has no case for filing the petition under revision to contend violation of the order dated 08.10.2010. The trial Court further held that there are no procedural irregularities and therefore, the revision petitioner cannot be permitted to seek appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to record physical features of the suit schedule property as the same amounts to collection of evidence. Therefore, the petition has been dismissed leading to filing of the present civil revision petition.

Grounds of revision:

6. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the revision petitioner made efforts to proceed with trial since 2016, but could not proceed with the same due to the reasons beyond his control. The trial Court recorded incorrect status about the interim order in docket order dated 22.10.2021 in I.A.No.25 of 2018 and the same has added to the plight of the revision petitioner. It is urged that the certified copy issued with respect to the order dated 22.10.2021 is contrary to the handwritten doc