HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1153 AND 1606 OF 2008 DATE:22-12-2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1153 OF 2008 BETWEEN Palaparthi Srirama Chandra Rao …Petitioner AND Kanuri Krishna Murthy …Respondent CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1606 OF 2008 BETWEEN Palaparthi Srirama Chandra Rao …Petitioner AND Kanuri Krishna Murthy …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1153 AND 1606 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are arising out of same proceedings and are interrelated to each other, and therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. These two revisions are filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the orders of the Junior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru, dated 4.2.2008 in dismissing I.A.Nos.44 and 45 of 2008 in O.S.No.203 of 2003 filed to reopen the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff and to issue summons to the Advocate- commissioner and Surveyor appointed in I.A.No.526 of 2003 for their examination. In spite of service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to put up appearance opposing the revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have gone through the material available on record. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. In the said suit, he himself examined as P.W.1 and later an Advocate-commissioner was appointed in I.A.No.526 of 2003 to measure the suit schedule property with the help of surveyor and to submit report along with plan. On submitting the report by the Advocate-commissioner, objections were filed on 2.7.2004. Later issues were settled on 21.12.2004. On examination of P.W.1, an Advocate- commissioner was appointed to record evidence of both sides, and that the Advocate-commissioner filed his report stating that he examined P.Ws.1,2 and D.W.1. At this stage, the above two applications were filed for summoning the witnesses and for cross-examination. The said applications were dismissed only on the ground that the plaintiff has taken several adjournments earlier when the Advocate-commissioner was appointed for recording the evidence and hence, there are no bona fides and the petitions are filed only to protract the litigation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons assigned by the lower Court for dismissing the impugned I.As. are not at all warranted. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the lower Court are set aside and both applications i.e. I.A.Nos.44 and 45 of 2008 shall stand allowed and the petitioner is directed to pay the necessary batta for taking out summons to the witnesses within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also deposit a sum of Rs.500/- to the credit of the suit towards charges to be paid to the witnesses to be present in the Court. On payment of batta and said amount, the lower Court shall take out summons to the witnesses namely, Advocate-commissioner and the Surveyor by fixing a date and on the date so fixed, the petitioner-plaintiff shall proceed with the examination of the witnesses. It is made clear that failure to comply with any of the above conditions, the I.As. shall stand dismissed. The revisions are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 22, 2010 Tsr.