Madras High Court allowed civil revision against the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. The court held the order erroneous as the suit sought only a perpetual injunction, making physical survey unnecessary.
Interlocutory Application No. 108 of 2010 set aside and dismissed; Civil Revision Petition allowed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.10.2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1730 of 2011
and
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011
Lakshmi
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Perumal .. Respondent
Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 07.06.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.108 of 2010 in Original Suit No.164 of 2007 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's Court, Cheranmahadevi.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Parekhkumar
For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 07.06.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.108 of 2010 in Original Suit No.164 of 2007 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's Court, Cheranmahadevi.
2
erroneously allowed the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.108 of 2010 and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(RTI Act)
/TRUE COPY/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi.
+1cc to Mr.J.Parekhkumar, Advocate SR.No.35687
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ smn PA/28.10.2011/2P/3C
C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1730 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 12.10.2011
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an Advocate Commissioner order can be set aside when the suit seeks only a perpetual injunction?
Whether the trial court erred in appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note physical features of property without such relief being sought?
Whether the lower court order allowing appointment of Advocate Commissioner is liable to be set aside?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lakshmi
Perumal
A. Selvam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
