KORADA MURALI Vs. SRINIVASA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Judge in appointing an advocate commissioner in terms of Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC.

(2.) The suit is filed for relief of permanent injunction to restrain the first respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. It is a vacant site along with a RCC building in an extent of Ac.0.23 cents including front yard vacant site. The petitioner also sought a temporary injunction in the suit and this petition is stated to be pending. A written statement has already been filed by the first respondent and now the stage of the suit is for settlement of issues.

(3.) At that stage, the first respondent filed the above petition not only to inspect the plaint schedule property but also to measure the same with reference to certain sale deeds. Such effort is stated to be for better appreciation of the matter in dispute and that it would assist the Court properly. The petitioner resisted appointment of Commissioner mainly on the ground that the attempt is only to collect evidence and when it is the burden of the parties to prove their case adducing appropriate evidence, appointing a commissioner is improper.