IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV

MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH 'DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 104 OF 2023

Between:

M.Venkataramana Reddyl S/o Reddeppa Reddy, Hindu, aged 60 years, employee, R/at D.No.18-4-104-H, Railway Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

AND

-E

1. Gajula Satyanarayana, s/o Gajula Subanna, Hindu, aged about 64 years, R/o D.No.2-214, Jayaramarao Street, Srl'kalahasthi Town and Post, Srikalahasthi, Tirupati District.

(Description of No.1 amended as per orders in lA.No.251/2022, Dated 05.01.2023)

• 2. R.Komala, W/o Jaganmohan Reddy, Hindu, aged about 38 years, House wife, R/at D.No.1-88, Yeguru Village, Gangadhar NeIIore Mandal, Chittoor District.
• 3. R.Jaganmohan Reddy, S/o R.Ramakrishna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Business, R/at D.No.1-88, Yeguru Village, Gangadhar NeIIore Mandal, Chittoor District.

Respondents/Respondents

Appellant/Petitioner/plaintiff

Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order Dated 27.02.2O23 ITwenty Seventh Day of February Two Thousand Twenty Three) and made in I.A.No.243/2022 in O.S.No.102/2022 by the X-Addl.District Judge's Court, Tirupati, Tirupati District, and thus allow the said I.A.No.243/2022 in O.S.No.102raO22 filed for Temporary lnJ'unCtiOn With COStS.

lANO: 1 OF2023

Petition under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 and Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their men or successors from in any way proceeding with further construction l'n the plaint schedule property, Pending disposal of CMA 104 of 2023, on the file of the High Courf'

The Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the appeal and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B V Krishna Reddy Advocate for the petitioner, the court made the following

ORDER

I'After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court notices that of all the points made, one issue deserves consideration. The trial Court relied upon the order passed in w.p.No.15418 of 2022 to hold that

constructl-ons being made are not illegal constructions, since there is an order by this Court. However in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application, it is clearly avoid that this writ petition has been withdrawn but the construction was continued. This aspect is not noticed by the Trial Court. The suit also contains a prayer for mandatory inJ'unCtiOn for removal Of the construction already made.

Learned counsel for the appellant argues that construction is not completed and that when the suit is filed, construction was at a preliminary stage-

To ascertain this issue, this court is of the opinion that an Advocate Commissioner is to be appointed to inspect the suit schedule property and also the current stage of construction.

Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, learned Advocate is appointed as an advocate commissioner and his fee is fixed tentatively at Rs.20,000/-. He is directed to inspect the suit schedule property and file a detailed report along with photographs. The inspection should be confined to the constructions that are made in the plaint schedule property.

List on 31.O3.2023.

ln the meanwhile, learned counsel for the appe[Iant is permitted to take out personal notice to respondent Mos.1 to 3 by RPAD and file proof of service in the Registry.

Advocate commissioner is also given liberty to serve notice on respondent Nos.1 to 3 before execution of warrant.I;

Sd/- s. SRINIVASA PRASAD GISTRAR ASSISTAN%

SECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

For

To,

• 1. X-Addl.District Judge's Court, Tirupati, Tirupati District
• 2. Gajula Satyanarayana, S/o Gajula Subanna, Hindu, aged about 64 years, R/o D.No.2-214, Jayaramarao Street, Srikalahasthi Town and Post, Srikalahasthi, Tirupati District.
• 3. R.Komala, W/o Jaganmohan Reddy, Hindu, aged about 38 years, House wife, R/at D.No.1-88, Yeguru Village, Gangadhar Nellore MandaI, Chittoor District.
• 4. R.Jaganmohan Reddy, S/o R.Ramakrishna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Business, R/at D.No,1-88, Yeguru Village, Gangadhar Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District. (2 to 4 by RPAD)
• 5. One CC to Sri B V Krishna Reddy Advocate [OPUC]
• 6. One CC to Sri P. Sai Surya Teja , Advocate Commissioner.[BY SPECIAL MESSENGER]
• 7. Two spare copies. MSB

HIGH COURT

DVSSJ & SVJ

DATED: 20/03/2023

LIST ON 31.03.2023

ORDER

CMA.No.104 of 2023

DIRECTION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV/ MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH ll^/O THOUSAND AND ll^/ENTY THREE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 104 OF 2023

Between:

M.Venkataramana Reddy, S/o Reddeppa Reddy, Hindu, aged 60 years, employee, R/at D.No.18-4-104-H, Railway Colony, Tirupat'l, Chittoor District.

AND

.` I

Appellant/Petitioner/plaintiff

1. Gajula Satyanarayana, S/o Gajula Subanna, Hindu, aged about 64 years, R/o D.No.2-214, Jayaramarao Street, Srikalahasthi Town and Post, Srikalahasthi, Tirupati District.

(Description of No,1 amended as per orders in lA.No.251/2022, Dated 05.01.2023)

• 2. R.Komala, W/o Jaganmohan Reddy, Hindu, aged about 38 years, House wife, R/at D.No.1-88, Yeguru Village, Gangadhar NeIIore Mandal, Chittoor District.
• 3. R.Jaganmohan Reddy, S/o R.Ramakrishna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Business, R/at D.No.1-88, Yeguru Village, Gangadhar Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.

Respondents/Respondents

Whereas Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal,'the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order Dated 27.02.2023 (Twenty Seventh Day of February Two Thousand Twenty Three) and made in I.A.No.243/2022 in O.S.No.102/2022 by the X-Addl.District Judge's Court, Tirupati, Tirupati District, and thus allow the said I.A.No.243/2022 in O.S.No.102/2022 filed for Temporary Injunction with costs.

And Whereas Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the appeal and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B V Krishna Reddy Advocate for the Petitioner, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court notices that of all the points made, one issue deserves consideration the trial Court relied upon the order passed in W.P.No.15418 of 2022 to hold that constructions being made are not illegal constructions, since there is an order by this Court, however in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application, it is clearly avoid that this writ petition has been withdrawn but the construction was continued and this aspect is not noticed by the Trial Court, the suit also contains a prayer for mandatory injunction for removal of the construction already made, learned counsel for the appellant argues that construction is not completed and that when the suit is filed, construction was at a preliminary stage, to ascertain this issue, this court appointed Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, learned Advocate as an advocate commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and also the current stage of construction;

Therefore you viz

Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, Advocate Commissioner

are hereby appointed as Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and also the current stage of construction. And also directed to inspect the suit schedule property and file a detailed report along with photographs. The inspection should be confined to the constructions that are made in the plaint schedule property.

You are directed to inspect the suit schedule property and file a detailed report along with photographs. The inspection should be confined to the constructions that are made in the plaint schedule property and you are given liberty to serve notice on respondent Nos. 1 to 3 before execution of warrant.

You are further informed that your fee for this purpose is fixed at Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only).

You are directed to file final report positively within 31.03.2023.

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- S. SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To,

• 1. Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, Advocate Commissioner (BY SPECIAL MESSENGER with a copy of petition and material papers)
• 2. One Spare copy.

MSB

HIGH COURT

DVSSJ & SVJ

DATED:20/03/2023

LIST ON 31.03.2023

ORDER

CMA.No.104 of 2023

APPOINTMENT OF ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER