APHC010142012024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 629 & 633/2024

Between:

Nagiripenta Ramana, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

Arangi Vasantha Rao ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. A BHASKARA CHARY

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. S SRINIVASA RAO

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER

These two revisions are filed by the defendants aggrieved by the inaction of the Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali, in not disposing of the interlocutory applications filed to advance hearing of the applications filed seeking appointment of a fresh advocate commissioner.

2. C.R.P.No.629 of 2024 is preferred aggrieved by the inaction in not disposing I.A.No.167 of 2022 in I.A.No.28 of 2021 in O.S.No.4 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali, whereas C.R.P.No.633 of 2024 is preferred aggrieved by the inaction in not disposing I.A.No.615 of 2023 in I.A.No.168 of 2022 in I.A.No.272 of

2021 in O.S.No.69 of 2021 on the file of the same Court.

3. The defendants in both the suits are one and the same and hence, both the revisions are heard together and are being disposed of together.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation for the respondent/

plaintiff.

5. The respondent/plaintiff(s) filed the suit(s) against the defendants seeking permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. Along with the suit, applications seeking ad interim injunction were also filed. The plaint schedule property is covered by Sy.Nos.189, 190 and 191. Sy.No.189 is a gramakantam, Sy.No.190 is jirayat land and not yet sub divided and Sy.No.191 is a government poramboku land. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs suppressed the real facts, fabricated the revenue records with the help of the revenue authorities and got filed these suits. In the said circumstances, the defendants filed petitions seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features with the assistance of a Mandal Surveyor. The trial Court appointed Sri S. Sridhar Raju, Advocate as commissioner. However, the learned counsel filed memo before the trial Court stating that he is not interested to execute the warrant. As such, the defendants filed these applications seeking to advance hearing of the applications seeking appointment of a fresh advocate commissioner.

6. As no orders were passed on these applications, these revision petitions came to be filed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court instead of appointing another advocate commissioner committed serious error in adjourning the advance petition along with I.A.Nos.167 of 2022 and 168 of 2022 respectively.

8. A perusal of the docket order of the trial Court indicates that the matter was adjourned on 02.01.2024 to 05.01.2024 for filing counter. On 05.01.2024, 08.01.2024, 11.01.2024, counter was not filed and the matter was adjourned to 12.01.2024. On 12.01.2024, the matter was adjourned to 23.01.2024 for filing counter and from 23.01.2024 to 29.01.2024 as a last chance. On 29.01.2024, counter was not filed and again, the matter was adjourned to 02.02.2024. On 02.02.2024, the matter was adjourned to 06.02.2024. On 06.02.2024, the matter was again adjourned to 12.02.2024 and from 12.02.2024, it was again adjourned to 29.04.2024.

9. When the earlier counsel appointed as commissioner expressed his inability to execute the warrant and filed memo to that effect, the trial Court ought to have appointed another commissioner in his place and ought to have decided the application seeking advancement instead of adjourning the petition to be taken up later. The courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensi