Dismissed

Mohamed Ali, v. Pappammal

Madras HC13 Oct 2011CRP(MD)/667/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner afresh. The Court held the petition not legally maintainable as a Commissioner and report already existed in the original suit, dismissing the challenge and confirming the lower court order.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs, and the order dismissed in the Interlocutory Application is confirmed. The petitioner is left at liberty to file a petition for re-issuing the c

Mohamed Ali, Vs Pappammal — Property and Title | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

Mohamed Ali

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.10.2011

¶4

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION.(MD). No.667 of 2011 and

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION.(MD). No.1 of 2011

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.Pappammal

2.Kumar

3.Gopalaswami .. Respondents

¶11

Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 28.01.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1206 of 2010 in Original Suit No.321 of 2006 by the District Munsif Court, Manapparai.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The order dated 28.01.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1206 of 2010 in Original Suit No.321 of 2006 by the District Munsif Court, Manapparai is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶15

The respondents herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.321 of 2006 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunctions, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as second defendant. During pendency of the same, the revision petitioner as petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No.1206 of 2010 under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The Court below after considering the contentions putforth on either side has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/second defendant as revision petitioner.

¶16

Considering the nature of the reliefs sought for in Original Suit No.321 of 2006 as well as in Interlocutory Application No.1206 of 2010 and the order passed therein, notice need not be sent to the respondents and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that in Original Suit No.321 of 2006 already an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed and he exceeded his limit and under the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting appointment of an Advocate Commissioner afresh and the Court below

¶18

¶19

without considering the main averments made in Interlocutory Application No.1206 of 2010 has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

¶20

It is seen from the records that Original Suit No.321 of 2006 has been filed for the reliefs of declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunctions. Further in Original Suit No.321 of 2006, an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed and he inspected the suit properties and ultimately filed his report and plan. Therefore it is quite clear that in Original Suit No.321 of 2006 already Commissioner's report and plan are in existence. The present petition has been filed so as to appoint an Advocate Commissioner afresh. Considering the fact that already an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed in Original Suit No.321 of 2006 and he filed his report and plan, the present petition is not legally maintainable for getting appointment of an Advocate Commissioner afresh. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed the petition. In the light of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any force in the contention urged on the side of the revision petitioner and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶21

In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.1206 of 2010 in Original Suit No.321 of 2006 by the District Munsif Court, Manapparai is confirmed. However the revision petitioner is at liberty to file a petition for re-issuing the commission warrant to the same Commissioner. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar (AS) /True copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The District Munsif, Manapparai.

¶26

Smn

¶27

GH : 28.10.2011 : 2p/2c

¶28

C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.667 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mohamed Ali, v. Pappammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Ali, v. Pappammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi W/O.Gopal Vs Perumal S/O.Pasuvan

Nainar Sankar Vs the New India Assurance Co.Ltd

M. Ponniah Vs P. Sesammal

G.Narayanaswami, Vs Dhanalakshmi

Sarafunisha, Vs Jeyakumar

S. Murugeshan Vs P. Velusamy