7/27/2019 OS 58-11

1/5

IN THE COURT OF THE 1st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: MADANAPALLE

I.A.NO:157/2012O.S.NO: 58/2011

Petitioner/Plaintiff : C. Narayana

Respondents/Defendants : V. Gurrappa and others.

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THERESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS

1. The Petition filed by the Petitioner is notmaintainable either in law or on facts and thesame is liable to be dismissed in limine.

2. The allegations mentioned in the Affidavit areall false and incorrect and the Petitioner is putto strict proof of each and every allegationexcept those that are specifically admittedherein to be true and correct.

3. The allegations mentioned in the Affidavit that

on 26-12-2011, the Defendants and their

followers cut the trees and they are trying to

take away the cut trees from the suit Schedule

Property , i.e., in S.NO:1930/2 and that the

Plaintiff gave a complaint to the S.H.O.:

Madanapalle Taluk P.S., the Thasildar:

Madanapalle and Forest Department and the

Police did not take any action against the said

persons and the Thasildar stopped the cut

7/27/2019 OS 58-11

2/5

trees from the hands of the Defendants and

that the cut trees are present in the fields and

that a commissioner is to be appointed forlocating the suit Schedule Property and note

down the physical features and also note down

the cut trees recently by the Defendants are

all utterly false and incorrect.

4. It is humbly submitted that already thePetitioner has filed I.A.NO:12/2011 before this

Honble court and Smt. M. Malathi was

appointed as Advocate Commissioner for

purpose of localization of the Schedule

Property and to note down the physicalfeatures and the said work is in progress. A

kind perusal of the prayer portion in

I.A.NO:12/2011 and this application shows that

both prayers are identical and the for one and

the same relief, the Petitioner wants two

commissioners , which is impermissible under

law. It is not at whims and fancies of the

Petitioner, number of Commissioners will be

appointed for the same relief. Unless there are

serious objections to the 1 st Commissioners

report and when the Honble court holds that

the 1 st Commissioner is scraped, the 2 nd

Commissioner can not be appointed as a

7/27/2019 OS 58-11

3/5

matter of course. In this matter, the work of 1 st

Commissioner is not yet completed and as

such, this petition for appointment of 2nd

Commissioner is not at all maintainable.

5. The allegations mentioned in the Affidavit that

the Respondents cut and carried away the

trees and that the Petitioner preferred the

complaint to the concerned are all not at allsupported by any documentary evidence and

simply making bald allegations is not a ground

to grant relief to the Petitioner.

6. The averments of the Affidavit show that the

Petitioner wants the appointment of Commissioner for collection of evidence which

is another ground to dismiss the petition ,

because there are catena of decisions by the

Honble High court that the Commissioner can

not be appointed for purpose of collection of

evidence. Thus, viewed from any angle , there

are Absolutely no grounds to grant the relief to

the Petitioner. The other allegations

mentioned in the Affidavit are all hereby

denied.

7. It is therefore most humbly prayed that theHonble court may be pleased to dismiss thepetition with costs, in the interest of justice.

7/27/2019 OS 58-11

4/5

Madanapalle, counsel for theRespondents

Dt: 29-02-2012

IN THE COURT OF THE 1st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: MADANAPALLE

I.A.NO: /2012O.S.NO: 58/2011

Petitioner/Plaintiff : C. Narayana

Respondents/Defendants : V. Gurrappa and others.

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS1. The Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts

and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.

2. The allegations mentioned in the Affidavit are all false and incorrect and the

Petitioner is put to strict proof of each and every allegation except those that

are specifically admitted herein to be true and correct.

3. The allegations mentioned in the Affidavit that on 26-12-2011, the Defendants

and their followers cut the trees and they are trying to take away the cut trees

from the Schedule Property and that the Plaintiff gave complaint to the Police

and they did not take any action and that the Thasildar stopped the cut trees

from the hands of the Defendants and again on 17-02-2012 , the Defendants cut

the trees and that the Petitioner gave complaint to Taluk PS and they did not

take any action and that the Thasildar endorsed to the VRO and that the

Defendants violated the interim order passed by the Honble court and all theDefendants are punishable under law and other allegations are all utterly false

and incorrect.

4. The Respondents humbly submits that the Petitioner has filed the above suit

with all false and frivolous allegations and the Respondents have filed their

detailed Written statement and counter with true and correct facts, and the

Respondents crave the permission of the Honble court to treat the pleadings

of their Written statement and counter as part and parcel of this counter for

all material purposes so as to avoid unnecessary repetition.

5. Thus, at the outset, it is humbly submitted that the Petitioner has filed the

above suit including the landed Property of the Respondents and others in the

Plaint Schedule with ulterior motives to grab at their Property, which has been

7/27/2019 OS 58-11

5/5

in their enjoyment for more than 60 years. By suppressing the material facts,

the Petitioner got filed the above suit and thereby, secured exparte interim

orders and running the litigation. The Respondents have also effected lot of

improvements in suit Property by leveling the land, digging bore wells by

spending huge amounts and paying kist to the Revenue Authorities and were

granted Pattadar Pass book and Title deeds, etc., and raising crops. These

Respondents are law abiding citizens and after grant of exparte orders, these

Respondents never intended to flout the same and they never cut the trees in

the suit Property and such allegations have been leveled by the Petitioner

simply to harass the Respondents. The Affidavit is very bald and except the

self interested testimony of the Petitioner, no scrap of paper has been filed in

support of his alleged contentions which can not form a basis for application of

O.39,R.2-A:CPC, which disentitles the Petitioner to avail the relief claimed in

this petition. The other allegations mentioned in the Affidavit are all denied as

false and incorrect.

6. It is therefore most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble court may be pleased to

dismiss the petition with costs, in the interest of justice.

Madanapalle, counsel for the Respondents

Dt: