IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 629 AND 633 OF 2024 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 629 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the revision directing the Civil Judge Court,(Junior Division) Kotabommali, to appoint another Advocate Commissioner to note down Physical features of the suit schedule property immediately Between: 1. Nagiripenta Ramana, S/o Asirivadu, aged about 56 years, Occ P.D., in Dr. B.R. AmbetkarGurukulam, Duppalavalasa, Srikakulam District. R/o Duppalavalasa (V), Etherla Mandal, Srikakulam District 2. Behar Puspalatha, W/o N. Ramana, Aged about 46 years, Occ S. Asst., (Hindi), MPUP School, Thotapalem Village, Etherla Mandal, Srikakulam District ...Petitioners/Petitioners AND S/o Late Latchanna, R/o D.No. 1-49, Kalingaveedi, Dandugopalapuram Village, SanthabommaliMandal, Srikakulam District. Arangi Vasantha Rao ...Respondent/Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to appoint another advocate as Advocate Commissioner to execute the warrant issued in IA.No.167 of 2022 in IA.No.28 of 2022 in O.S.No.04 of 2022 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:633 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the revision directing the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Court, Kotabommali, to appoint another Advocate Commissioner down Physical features of the suit schedule property. to note Between: 1. Nagiripenta Ramana, S/o Asirivadu, aged about 56 Dr. B.R. Ambetkar Gurukulam, Duppalavalasa, Srikakulam Duppalavalasa (V), Etherla Mandal, Srikakulam District 2. Behar Puspalatha, W/o N. Ramana, Aged about 46 (Hindi), MPUP School, Thotapalem Village, Etherla Mandal District. years, Occ P.D., in District. R/o years, Occ S. Asst., , Srikakulam ...Petitioners/Petitioners AND Balaka Chiranjeevi Naidu, S/o Late Venku Naidu, Kalinga Veedhi, Dandugopalapuram Village, Santhbommali Srikakulam District. R/o D. No. 1-81, Mandal, ...Respondent/Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to appoint another advocate as Advocate Commissioner to execute the warrant issued in IA.No.613 of 2013 in IA.No.168 of 2021 in O.S.No.69 of 2021 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Court, Kotabommali Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A. BHASKARA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI S. SRINIVASA RAO The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:- ! APHC010142012024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] 0? 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 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.ABHASKARA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent: 1.S SRINIVASA RAO The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Civil Revision Petition Nos.629 & 633 of 2024 Between: Nagiripenta Ramana and others ...Petitioner And Arangi Vasantha Rao ....Respondent DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 28.01.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the order? 2. Whether the copy of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/Ntf 3. Whether Her Ladyship wish to see the fair copy Yes/N© of the order? / THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Civil Revision Petition Nos.629 & 633 of 2024 % 28.01.2025 # Between: Nagiripenta Ramana and others ...Petitioner And Arangi Vasantha Rao ....Respondent ! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A. Bhaskara Chary Counsel for the respondent : Sri S.Srinivasa Rao < Gist; > Head Note: ? Cases referred; 2 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.629&633 of 2024 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. 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. 2. The defendants in both the suits are one and the same and 3. hence, both the revisions are heard together and are being disposed of together. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation for the respondent/ 4. 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 I 3 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.629 & 633 of 2024 filed. The plaint schedule 191. Sy.No.189i sub divided and Sy.No.19l i case of the defendants that the fabricated the and got filed these suits, petitions seeking appointment property is covered by Sy.Nos. 189 190 and IS a gramakantam, Sy.No.190 is ii IS jirayat land and not yet IS a government poramboku land. It is the plaintiffs suppressed the revenue records with the help of the In the said circumstances of an advocate with the assistance of real facts, revenue authorities the defendants filed commissioner to note a Mandal Surveyor. Sridhar Raju, Advocate down the physical features wi The trial Court appointed Sri S. commissioner. However, the learned as counsel filed memo before the execute the warrant. As seeking to advance a fresh advocate trial Court stating that he iIS not interested to these applications seeking appointment of such, the defendants filed hearing of the applications commissioner. 6. As no orders petitions came to be filed. were passed on these applications, these revision T- The learned counsel for Court instead of the petitioners submitted appointing another advocate that the trial commissioner committed petition along with I.A.Nos.167 senous error in adjourning the advance of 2022 and 168 of 2022 respectively. I 4 BSBJ C.R.P.Nos.629 & 633 of 2024 8. A perusal of the docket order of the trial Court indicates that the matter was adjourned On 05.01.2024, 08.01.2024, 11.01.2024 matter was adjourned to 12.01.2024. on 02.01.2024 to 05.01.2024 for filing counter was not filed and the On 12.01.2024, the matter counter. was adjourned to 23.01.2024 for filing 29.01.2024 as a last chance. On 29.01.2024 again, the matter was adjourned to 02.02.2024. matter was adjourned to 06.02.2024. counter and from 23.01.2024 to counter was not filed and On 02.02.2024, the On 06.02.2024, the matter again adjourned to 12.02.2024 and from 12.02.2024, it was again adjourned to 29.04.2024. was I I / / / / 9. When the earlier counsel appointed his inability to execute the warrant and filed Court ought to have appointed another as commissioner expressed memo to that effect, the trial commissioner in his place and ought to have decided the application seeking advancement instead of up later. The courts shall not grant adjourning the petition to be taken the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The court shall be very slow in granting adjournments and as observed hereinabove they shall not grant repeated adjournments in a routine manner. 10. When an advocate appointed as Commissioner could not, for execute the warrant, any reason. since the relief of appointing T 5 BSB,J C.R.P.Nos.629 & 633 of 2024 Commissioner was already granted, it is necessary to appoint another advocate as Commissioner to comply the relief granted, or else it would amount to refusal of the relief granted which is impermissible. Accordingly, both these revision petitions are disposed of directing the trial Court to hear and forthwith appoint another advocate as Commissioner, if not so far the execution of warrant is completed. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// li SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble MS JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI (For Her Ladyships’ Kind Perusal) To, 1. The Civil Judge Court (Junior Division), Kotabommali, Srikakulam District. One CC to Sri A Bhaskara Chary, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri S Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Nine (09) L.R. Copies. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. SD sree HIGH COURT \ DATED:28/01/2025 COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.629 AND 633 of 2024 ^OFANO^^^ ^ I I FEB 2025 I CurfAnt SflcttOfi ^^•2£?»>ATC«si5^ o 1^ DISPOSING THE C.R.Ps. WITHOUT COSTS