High Court · 2025

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 grant stay of all,further proceedings in OS.No.419/2023 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar, pending disposal of the revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Y.Krishna Mohan Rao. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri D.A.Prem Chand The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revisio n Petition No.3610 of 2o.24 ORDER: The instant Civil Revision Petition has been f,rled by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constltution of India praying the Court to set aside the order dated

03.10.2024 in I.A.No.220 of 2024 in I.A.No.39l of 2O23 io O.S.No.419 of 2023 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar (for short, 'the impugned order')

2. Heard Mr.Y. Krishna Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. irncl Mr. D.A. Prem Chald, learned counsel for the 1",respondent.

3. Vide rhe impugned order, the Trial Court drsmissed the petition rvhich was frled by the petitioners herein under Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of Ci'ril Procedure Code, i9O8 with a prayer to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner to note down the physical features and boundaries of the petition schedule property, i.e., open Plot No.43, admeasuring 200 Sq.Yds., situate in Survey No.10' ) P5K,J crP J61O _2021 Pahsambanda Village, Shamshabad Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. :..} 4, The brief facts of the case are that the lst respondeht (plaintiff) had llled the above suit under Order VII Rules I and 2 r/w Section 26 of C:.ll Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for a declaration to declarc the followir-rg documents, wz., : (tl Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated I 1.0I.20 18, (ii) Additional Development Agreement General Power of Attorney, dated 29.O2.2020, and (iii) Supplementary Agreement dated 29.01.2022 as null and uoid ab initio to the extent of suit schedule property; and to grant consequential relief of injunction. 5, The petitioners herein, (i.e., defendant Nos.2 and 3 have entered appearance). Thereafter, the matter stood for settlement of the grounds as per the documents referred supra.

6. In between, the instant I.A. under challenge has been filed by the petitioners seeking for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for noting dor,r,n the physical l 3 PSK,J crP 3610 _2024 features of the boundaries of the petition schedule property

7. l-e arncd counsel for the petitioners primarily contended thar the purpose for appointment of an Advoc:rte-Co rrrm issione r !r,as to physicaily verify,' the petition schedulc propertv and to submit a report so far as u,hether the petition schedule property still remains intact, and if the 1", respondent succeeds at a iater stage in the suit proceedings. the same could be decreed in his favour. He further contended that the suit schedule property is no longer in existence as the entire area itself has been developed and physical structures / constructions have also been raised thereon. He therefore contended that the relief sought for by the petitioners in the said I.A. cannot be gran t ed or auarded.

8. Lcarned cotrnsel for the 1st respondent (plaintiff) on the other hand opposed the petition on the ground that the suit lileci b-r tlrc 1.i respondent is one seeking lor clcclarat ion oi' thr' :rfo re rnen tioned three agreements to be bad in law. He further contended that it is the 1.r respondent u,ho has to establish and prove his case and it 4 PSK,J crp J6r0 )024 rJ is the petitioners who sha.[ take or make ail endeavours in leading proper evidence in support of their claims and contentions. He further contended that whatever contentions the petitioners intends to raise, the same may not be required at this juncture for the reason that the petitioners themselves would get a chance to appear before the Trial Court and lead evidence in support of their claims and contentions, and therefore, at this juncture, there was no necessitSr on the part of petitioners to file the I.A., and prayed for dismissal of the Rerrision.

9. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on a perusal of the record, considering the fact that the suit is for declaration of the three agreements to be bad in law and for grant of perpetual injunction, it u,ould be the bounden duty of the lsr respondent to prove his case b.1, Ieading proper and cogent evidence including the aspect of availability of land if any.

10. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners would be given proper time to prove their case by leading cogent evidence to justify their claims and // I 5 P S K,-] crp_1610_2024 contentions rvhich rncludes non-availability of land for being decreed in favour of the petitioners' The petitioners' in the course of leading their evidence, Would be at liberty to raise and prove their case so far as the non-avaiiability of lald. is concerned. However, a pemsal of the impugned order would also show that the Triat Court has not foreclosed the claim of petitioners for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for all time to come, rather it has made an obsen'ation that in the event if the Court at a latcr slage feels that el'idence on record is not sufficient, the appointmerrl of an Advocate-Commissioner ':an still be done at a late: stage. Therefore, such an exercise at the initial stage of the suit may not be warranted' Therefore, this Court does not find any error committed by the Trial Court in reaching to the said conclusion, nor call it be said to be erroneous or bad in law so as to invoke the extra- ordina4r supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article22ToftheConstitutionoflndia'Therefore,theCivil Revision Petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingl-r' dismissed. Needless to mention, the Trial Court is directr:d to persuade ald decide the suit pending on its filc as expeditiously as possible. No costs' 6 P5K,J crP _3610 _2024

11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUECOPY/ / Sol- p. cx. NAGABHUSHAMBA Assl TANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER

1. The II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar 2. One CC to Sri Y.Krishna Mohan Rio, Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to Sri D.A.Prem Chand, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies \ To, ICK/gh o HIGH COURT DATED:37/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.3610 of 2024 I I )rsnrissrng tire (-. R. I,. r,r. i liro Lr t cos ts /(, rY f, o o r'. e s i.Ar€ Y z 2$ HA$ n6 o )l ,t * t iIESpATC J