Maddala Jagadish Kumar vs Sangapalli Venkata Subba Rao
2021 Latest Caselaw 414 AP

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

                   C.R.P.NO.529 OF 2020

ORDER:-

     The present Civil Revision Petition is filed being aggrieved

by the Order, dated 08-01-2020, passed in I.A.No.969 of 2019

in A.S.No.99 of 2015 by the VII Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the petition filed by the revision

petitioner/appellant, under Order XXVI Rule 9 and Section 151 of

the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 to appoint the Advocate

Commissioner to note down the physical features of the plaint

schedule property and essential repairs effected by the revision

petitioner and amenities, was dismissed.

2.   The brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.   The   respondent   herein is   the    landlord   and   revision

petitioner is the tenant. The respondent herein filed Suit

O.S.No.1162 of 2012 on the file of the Court of VII Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for eviction of the revision

petitioner/defendant from the plaint schedule premises on

various grounds. The learned trial judge, by way of decree and

judgment, dated 09-03-2015, partly allowed the suit and

directed the revision petitioner herein to vacate the premises.

Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the revision

petitioner preferred A.S.No.99 of 2015 before the VII Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. During pendency of

Appeal Suit, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.969 of 2019

under Order XXVI Rule 9 and Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking to

appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical

features of the plaint schedule property and essential repairs 2 KSR,J CRP_529_2020

effected by him and amenities. The respondent resisted the said

petition by filing a counter-affidavit inter alia contending that in

order to protract the proceedings in one way or the other, the

said I.A. was filed. The revision petitioner in his petition before

the lower appellate court has not assigned any reason for

appointment of Advocate Commissioner. Now, in the present

revision petition, it is contended that there was no tap

connection to the said premises and as such the question of

paying water charges does not arise.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord, while

pointing out the findings of the trial judge in para No.21 of the

judgment, wherein the revision petitioner/defendant specifically

admitted that he has to pay the electricity consumption charges

and also water charges excluding the rent, contended that when

such stand is taken by the revision petitioner, the question of

appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to find out water

connection does not arise.

5. This Court, while acceding to the contention of the learned

counsel for the respondent, is of the opinion that the first

appellate court did not commit any error in passing the order

which is impugned in this revision. Therefore, this court is of the

opinion that there are no merits in the revision and the same is

liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No

costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

in consequence.

__________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J th 28 JANUARY, 2021 TSNR