Pilli Yadaiah and Others vs Pilli Komraiah and Others

B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.—This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 22.11.2012, passed in IA No. 337 of 2012 in OS No. 2209 of 2009 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge dismissed the petition filed under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 22.3.2013. Despite service of notice, the respondents did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a Counsel.

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the order impugned in the revision petition.

It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the trial Court misread the relief sought for in IA No. 337 of 2012 and thereby erred in dismissing the same. A further contention has been advanced that the purpose of filing IA No. 337 of 2012 is to note the physical features existing in the suit land to avoid voluminous oral evidence. However, the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge proceeded to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition has been moved by the petitioner to gather evidence.

The petitioners are the plaintiffs in OS No. 2209 of 2009 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. The respondents are the defendants in the said suit. The plaintiffs filed the suit for perpetual injunction. It is the version of the plaintiffs that in suit land ''cattle pen'' (Aavula Dhoddi) exists. The defendants contradicted the said plea by filing counter in IA No. 337 of 2012. The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge misread the relief sought for by the petitioners/plaintiffs and thereby, erred in dismissing the petition. For better appreciation, I may refer Para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of IA No. 337 of 2012 and it is thus:

It is most humbly stated that the suit schedule property i.e., premises known as "Avula Dhoddi"/"Cattle Pen" measuring to an extent of 438 Sq. yards, situated at Khaitlapur Village, hamlet of Kukatpally Revenue Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh, bounded by North: Neighbours land belongs to P. Balaiah and family, South: Road, West: Land belongs to A.P. Housing Board, East: Land belongs to P. Ashok, S/o. late Pentaiah and house of P. Veereshaim, originally belongs to our grandfather i.e., late Mallesh, S/o. Danaiah specially used for the inhabitation of cattle, dumping of cattle waste, storing cattle grass etc. On demise of the grandfather and fathers of the petitioners/plaintiffs, the petitioners herein acquired and inherited to the above suit premises by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act. Thus we acquired absolute title, ownership and have been in settled and constructive possession and enjoyment of the suit premises since their childhood and time immemorial without any objection and claims.

The petitioners/plaintiffs specifically asserted in the affidavit with regard to the existence of ''cattle pen'' (Aavula Dhoddi) in the suit schedule land. The existence of ''cattle pen'' (Aavula Dhoddi) has been denied by the respondents/defendants. The appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features in view of the contradictory stands taken by the parties is essential to avoid voluminous oral evidence.

In that view of the matter, the civil revision petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 22.11.2012, passed in IA No. 337 of 2012 in OS No. 2209 of 2009 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB. Nagar, and consequently, IA No. 337 of 2012 stands allowed to the extent of appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features with regard to the existence of ''cattle pen'' (Aavula Dhoddi) in the suit schedule land. The trial Court has to appoint the Advocate Commissioner for the said purpose. No costs.