Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
S. Srinivas Rao – Appellant
Versus
M. Venkata Singaiah – Respondent
ORDER:
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J.
Heard Sri Ravi Teja, learned counsel representing Sri A.Veera Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.V.Ramakrishna, learned counsel representing Sri Ch.Sai Gangadhar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 03.08.2021 in I.A.No.118 of 2021 in I.A.No.47 of 2021 in O.S.No.314 of 2021, on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Special Mobile Court-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, rejecting the petitioner’s request for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the limited purpose of noting down the physical features of the suit schedule property in I.A.No.118 of 2021.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff on the following grounds contending that the learned Trial Court erred in considering the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for limited purpose of noting down the physical features of the suit schedule property which is warranted. Further, the learned Trial Court was influenced by referring to the filing of the
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
