IN THE COURT OF THE 1st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: MADANAPALLE I.A.NO:157/2012 O.S.NO: 58/2011 Petitioner/ Plaintiff : C.

Narayana V. Gurrappa and others.

Respondents/ Defendants :

1.

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS 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. 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. 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 Plaintiff , i.e., in S.NO:1930/2 gave a complaint P.S., to the Taluk and that the the S.H.O.: Thasildar:

2.

3.

Madanapalle

Madanapalle and Forest Department and the Police did not take any action against the said persons and the Thasildar stopped the cut

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 for locating 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 court as of and submitted and Smt. that M. of down prayer already Malathi the the the was for Petitioner has filed I.A.NO:12/2011 before this Honble purpose Property kind appointed Advocate localization to of note the Commissioner

Schedule physical A in

features and the said work is in progress. perusal portion

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 1st Commissioners report and when the Honble court holds that the 1st Commissioner is scraped, the 2nd Commissioner can not be appointed as a

matter of course. In this matter, the work of 1 st Commissioner is not yet completed and as such, this petition for appointment of 2 nd 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 all supported 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 the Honble court may be pleased to dismiss the petition with costs, in the interest of justice.

Madanapalle, Respondents Dt:29-02-2012

counsel

for

the

IN THE COURT OF THE 1st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: MADANAPALLE I.A.NO: /2012 O.S.NO: 58/2011 Petitioner/ Plaintiff : Respondents/ Defendants : 1. C. Narayana V. Gurrappa and others.

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS 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 the Defendants 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

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, Dt: counsel for the Respondents