(Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the order dated:24/06/2008 and made in I.A.No.664/2008 in I.A.No.1343 of 2007 in O.S.No.214 of 2005 on the file of the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.)

Common Order:

The three revisions are filed by the defendant in O.S.No.214 of 2005.

The respondent filed the suit, against the petitioner, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the land in Sy.Nos.930 and 931 of Chinnachowk village of Kadapa District. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1343 of 2007, under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C., with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, to measure the suit schedule property as well as the neighbouring land in Sy.Nos.1043 and 1044, with the help of Mandal Surveyor. The I.A. was allowed on 3.11.2007.

The respondent filed C.R.P.No.5589 of 2007, against the order in I.A.No.1343 of 2007. Her grievance was that the order passed by the trial court enabled the petitioner herein to gather evidence. The CRP was allowed by this court on 15.2.2008, and the order dated 3.11.2007, was set aside. The trial court was directed to pass fresh orders in I.A.No.1343 of 2007.

In pursuance of the directions issued by this court in C.R.P.No.5589 of 2007, the trial court passed an order dated 11.4.2008, restricting the measurement, only to the extent of the plaint schedule property. C.R.P.(Sr.)No.24802 of 2008 is filed against the said order.

Petitioner filed I.A.No.664 of 2008, under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C., with a prayer to direct the Commissioner, who was already appointed in I.A.No.1343 of 2007, or another Commissioner, to take the measurements of the property, in accordance with the title deeds dated 6.9.2005, 16.12.1985 and 20.12.1979. He also filed I.A.No.665 of 2008, under Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to reopen the suit, by redirecting the Advocate Commissioner to take measurements, as per the title deeds. Through separate orders dated 24.6.2008, the trial court dismissed both the applications. C.R.P.Nos.4417 and 4418 of 2008 are filed, against the said orders.

Heard Sri. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The suit filed by the respondent is the one, for injunction simplicitor. The only issue that becomes relevant is, as to whether the respondent is in possession of the suit schedule property and whether the petitioner is interfering with her possession. It is not known as to whether the trial of the suit has commenced as yet.

The burden to prove the possession, is squarely upon the respondent. Appointment of Commissioner in suits for injunction be at the instance of the plaintiff, is a rare phenomenon. Even where such Commissioners are appointed, it would be only for the limited purpose of clarifying the physical features of the suit schedule property.

In the instant case, the petitioner being the defendant in the suit, filed an I.A, under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. Further, the prayer in the I.A. is clearly outside the scope of the suit. He wanted the measurements of not only the suit schedule property, but also the lands in other survey numbers. Such a course would not have been permissible in a suit for declaration also. This court has set aside the order, dated 3.11.2007, and directed the trial court to pass fresh orders. The trial court passed an order dated 11.4.2008, directing that the physical features of the plaint schedule property alone be noted. Though the petitioner feels aggrieved by this order and prays for a direction for measurement of the suit schedule property and also the neighbouring land, with reference to the sale deeds, this court is not inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner.

On the one hand, the petitioner filed CRP, assailing the order dated 11.4.2008, and on the other hand, filed a fresh application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC. The prayer in I.A.No.664 of 2008 is somewhat deceptive. He wanted the measurement of the properties, either through the existing Commissioner, or by appointing another Commissioner. To pave way for this, he filed another application for reopening of the suit.

If one looks at the practices adopted by the petitioner at various stages, an impression would certainly be gained that he is resorting to gross misuse of process of court and preventing the trial court, from proceeding with the trial. It is on account of such cantagaros litigants that the matters are pending for years together and an otherwise simple litigation is getting complicated.

Hence, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed, and it is directed that in case, the petitioner files such frivolous petitions before the trial court, the trial court shall consider the feasibility of imposing maximum costs that are permissible in law. The trial court shall endeavour to proceed with the trial and dispose of the suit, within three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.