for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the suit schedule as per the work memo to be filed by both the parties = The suit schedule property is only a portion of the land in the entire survey number and according to them they have made developments in the land which would show their possession and enjoyment. Unless an Advocate Commissioner is appointed to note the various physical features such as available water resources, irrigation channels, mosambi garden and localization of the suit schedule property in the total extent of the survey number great prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. The grant of relief in the I.A. was resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs. Learned Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, after considering the case on merits dismissed the I.A.= Order XVIII Rule 17A C.P.C. where a provision was available for production of evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence was repealed by the Act 46 of 1999, Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002. In other words, the right of a party to produce evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence was also taken away. The effect of the omission of Order XVIII Rule 17A C.P.C. in the context of the other provisions would leave no manner of doubt that the parties to the proceedings are required to be diligent in the first instance and at every stage to protect their interests and bring best possible evidence at the earliest. The same is evident from various other amendments which have been brought in the CPC. The object of various amendments is to curtile the delay in disposal of the suits and to discourage the parties to the suit to prolong the proceedings. In the present case, it is not even the case of the petitioners that the application of the nature seeking appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the suit schedule land could not have been made at the earliest point of time. We may note that the suit came to be filed in the year 2006, numbered in the year 2007 and the written statement itself came to be filed by the petitioners on 28.03.2007. It is an admitted fact that the suit is at the stage of arguments of the defendants. At this belated stage the relief of the nature cannot be granted. Another aspect which needs to be considered is maintainability of such application invoking section 151 C.P.C. though relief of the nature is akin to the relief that could be considered under Order XVIII Rule 17A C.P.C. The enormous delay that is likely to be caused in entertaining the applications of this nature at every stage succinctly elaborate in the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. At this stage, this court is conscious of the limitations. Further allowing of the application of this nature at this stage would only be paving way for one or the other of the parties to fill lacuna in evidences which is also not permissible. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the junior civil judge refusing to entertain the application for reopening of the case and further refusal to appoint advocate commissioner cannot be found fault and accordingly there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition.

for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the suit schedule as per the work memo to be filed by both the parties = The suit schedule property is only a portion of the land in the entire survey number and according to them they have made developments in the land which would show their possession and enjoyment. Unless an Advocate Commissioner is appointed to note the various physical features such as available water resources, irrigation channels, mosambi garden and localization of the suit schedule property in the total extent of the survey number great prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. The grant of relief in the I.A. was resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs. Learned Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, after considering the case on merits dismissed the I.A.= Order XVIII Rule 17A C.P.C. where a provision was available for production of evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence was repealed by the Act 46 of 1999, Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002. In other words, the right of a party to produce evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence was also taken away. The effect of the omission of Order XVIII Rule 17A C.P.C. in the context of the other provisions would leave no manner of doubt that the parties to the proceedings are required to be diligent in the first instance and at every stage to protect their interests and bring best possible evidence at the earliest. The same is evident from various other amendments which have been brought in the CPC. The object of various amendments is to curtile the delay in disposal of the suits and to discourage the parties to the suit to prolong the proceedings. In the present case, it is not even the case of the petitioners that the application of the nature seeking appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the suit schedule land could not have been made at the earliest point of time. We may note that the suit came to be filed in the year 2006, numbered in the year 2007 and the written statement itself came to be filed by the petitioners on 28.03.2007. It is an admitted fact that the suit is at the stage of arguments of the defendants. At this belated stage the relief of the nature cannot be granted. Another aspect which needs to be considered is maintainability of such application invoking section 151 C.P.C. though relief of the nature is akin to the relief that could be considered under Order XVIII Rule 17A C.P.C. The enormous delay that is likely to be caused in entertaining the applications of this nature at every stage succinctly elaborate in the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. At this stage, this court is conscious of the limitations. Further allowing of the application of this nature at this stage would only be paving way for one or the other of the parties to fill lacuna in evidences which is also not permissible. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the junior civil judge refusing to entertain the application for reopening of the case and further refusal to appoint advocate commissioner cannot be found fault and accordingly there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)