Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 955 (AP)

Satti Subrahmanyam v. Goluguri Ramakrishna Reddy

2012-10-04

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2012
Judgment The petitioner filed O.S.No.168 of 1997 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, against the respondents for the relief of injunction in relation to the water use of an irrigation channel. The suit was dismissed on 07.11.2002 after contest. A.S.No.35 of 2004 filed against the decree therein is pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. The petitioner filed O.S.No.334 of 2007 for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the irrigation channel, which incidentally was the subject matter of O.S.No.168 of 1997. In that suit, he filed I.A.No.2300 of 2011 with a prayer to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner, so that he can cause survey of the schedule channel with the help of surveyor and submit a report. The application was opposed by the respondents, on several grounds, including the one that similar exercise was undertaken in the earlier suit. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 27.01.2012. Hence, this revision. Heard Ms. Udaya Sree Malladi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Durga Prasada Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1. The application filed by the petitioner is for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner for inspecting the suit schedule channel with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor and for submission of report. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondents as regards the rights over the channel has been pending since long time, and in fact was the subject matter of O.S.No.168 of 1997. Naturally, the respondents pleaded that very ground and opposed the I.A. The trial Court dismissed the application through order, dated 27.01.2012. Though this Court agrees with the finding recorded by the trial Court, it expresses its serious dissatisfaction as the manner in which the matter was dealt with. The language employed in the order particularly in paragraph 7 is totally unsatisfactory. It is rather unfortunate that in the recent past, the Judicial Officers are not evincing proper interest to ensure that the grammatical mistakes do not occur in the orders passed by them. If someone reads the orders of this nature, they would form a poor opinion about the functioning of the Courts. No one is endowed with the linguistic skills from the beginning. However once an individual chooses a career, in which writing of detailed orders is an essential facet, there cannot be any excuse to commit mistakes. If someone reads the orders of this nature, they would form a poor opinion about the functioning of the Courts. No one is endowed with the linguistic skills from the beginning. However once an individual chooses a career, in which writing of detailed orders is an essential facet, there cannot be any excuse to commit mistakes. It is essential that the case is stated and reasons in support of the conclusions are mentioned in a language that accords with the grammar. One does not have to employ flowery English. Even if small and simple sentences are chosen, the purpose would be served. It is hoped that the learned Presiding Officer would take note of the concern of this Court, and improve in future. Coming to the merits of the case, the record discloses that Commissioners were appointed twice in O.S.No.168 of 1997. Incidentally, the appeal arising out of that suit, being A.S.No.35 of 2004, is pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. The petitioner ought to have taken steps to get the present suit clubbed with the appeal, so that the possibility of conflicting views being expressed is avoided. Therefore, the civil revision petition is disposed of directing that O.S.No.334 of 2007 pending in the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem be transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and on such transfer, it shall be heard along with A.S.No.35 of 2004. It is needless to mention that when the hearing of the appeal and suit are taken up, the reports that are already on record in O.S.No.168 of 1997 shall be taken into account and if the Court feels that any further exercise is necessary, it shall be open to it to pass appropriate orders. The miscellaneous petition filed in this civil revision petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.