HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3945 OF 2010 Dated: 3.9.2010 Between: 1. K. Ravindranath. ..Petitioner And 1. Shri Dhiraj Kumar Jaiswal and others. .. Respondents. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3945 OF 2010 ORDER: Challenging the order dated 05.08.2010 in I.A.No.260 of 2010 in O.S.No.447 of 2008 passed by the learned XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. Originally, the above application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 and section 151 CPC., seeking appointment of a Commissioner to verify the defendants’ shop on the other side of the road, which are given on rent to Reebok Show room and other business outlets. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: He is the absolute owner of the schedule property and the defendants executed a rental agreement for a period of 11 months in respect of the schedule mulgies, for the purpose of using the same until the construction of their shops, which are on the other side of the road, is completed. Though the construction has been completed, the defendants have not vacated the schedule mulgies and further they dismantled the wall between the mulgies without any permission. The 3rd defendant is using the two mulgies as one comprehensive unit and has been paying the rent at the rate of Rs.6000/- p.m., and he denied in his cross-examination in respect of his business in the schedule mulgies. The defendants filed a counter in the above application stating that while the suit is coming up for arguments, he filed the above application with a view to drag on the matter and that the plaintiff cross-examined D.W.1 in respect of the alleged mulgies and therefore, he cannot be permitted to collect evidence by way of seeking appointment of a Commissioner. Considering the material on record, the Court below having observed that when the matter is posted for arguments, the application of the plaintiff for appointment of commissioner to verify the suit mulgies is nothing but for the purpose of collection of evidence and therefore, commissioner cannot be appointed, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the suit is coming for arguments. At this stage of the proceedings, the approach of the plaintiff with the above application to verify the suit mulgies and verify the defendants’ shop by way of the appointment of the commissioner, does not appear to be a bonafide one for the reason that it amounts to collection of evidence as rightly observed by the Court below. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Court below does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 3rd September, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3945 OF 2010 03.09.2010