HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI C.R.P Nos:2820 & 2821 OF 2010 Dated: 9.7.2010 Between: Nagnath Rao ..Petitioner And Keshav Memorial Educational Society, Narayanguda, rep., by its Secretary T. Harihara Sharma. .. Respondent. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos:2820 & 2821 OF 2010 COMMON V CORDER: These revisions are directed against the orders, dated 3.5.2010 passed in I.A.Nos.342 & 343 of 2009 in R.C.No.562 of 1996 by the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. Originally, the above RC is filed by the respondent-society seeking eviction of the revision petitioner from the schedule premises. The above RC is at the stage of arguments. At that stage, the revision petitioner filed two applications one under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of an advocate- Commissioner to make local inspection and note down physical features, observe existence of “Naala” and to take photographs of the property bearing No.3-5-984/4 (New No.270) and 3-5-984/4/2 (New No.159), Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, and another application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC seeking a direction to the society to produce the original title papers, link document with plans, permit and sanction plan issued by MCH pertaining to their property No.3- 5-984/4, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, which includes the petition schedule property viz., 3-5-984/4/2 (New No.159). It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petition schedule property and the property of the society is situated on a Naala which is on the Government land and the said fact has come to light recently due to subsequent developments. The Court below having observed that in the main RC, the question of jural relationship between the parties has to be looked into and that the petitioner admitted the relationship in the main counter and he denied the title of the landlord during the cross- examination of P.W.1, but he did not take steps immediately and that no reasons were assigned by the petitioner for not filing the petitions at the earliest point of time, dismissed the above two applications. Challenging the above order, the present revision petitions have been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The material on record goes to show that the revision petitioner admitted the title of the respondent-society at the first instance in the main counter and later, basing on the cross- examination of P.W.1, he took the plea of denial of relationship between the parties, that too, when the matter is at the stage of arguments. When there is controversy as to the jural relationship between the parties, the same has to be looked into by the Court below at the relevant point of time. In this view of the matter and in view of the nature of the proceedings, I feel that the circumstances in the case on hand do not require any appointment of Commissioner or any direction for production of documents. Hence, the orders impugned herein, do not warrant any interference by this Court. In view of the above circumstances, both the revision petitions fail and accordingly, they are dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 9th July, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos:2820 and 2821 OF 2010 09.07.2010