Dismissed

Seethalakshmi v. Logambal

Madras HC18 Mar 2013CRP(MD)/147/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order dismissing an application to reissue a warrant for an Advocate Commissioner to inspect disputed property. The Madurai bench dismissed the petition, upholding the lower court's finding that no acceptable reason existed for re-inspection and that no infirmity was present in the order.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs are awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

Seethalakshmi Vs Logambal — Property and Title | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.03.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶4

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.147 of 2013 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶5

1.Seethalakshmi

¶6

2.Jeganathan 3.Gurunathan

¶7

4.Palaniandi

¶8

:Petitioners/Petitioners/ Defendants

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Logambal

¶11

:Respondent/Respondent/

¶12

Plaintiff

¶13

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 12.12.2012 passed in I.A.No.831 of 2012 in O.S.No.337 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur.

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr.V.Balaji

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The defendants in O.S.No.337 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Karur are the revision petitioners. The respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit for declaration for the plaintiff's easment right over the 'B' schedule property and injunction and the respondent/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.492 of 2011 for the appointment of Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit property and an exparte the Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the Advocate Commissioner inspected the suit property on 08.07.2011 and thereafter submitted a report. The revision petitioners entered appearance, on 28.10.2011 and thereafter filed an application on 27.09.2012, to reissue the Commissioner's warrant to the same Commissioner to note down the existing physical features available on the property and that application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶17

2.The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that admittedly no notice was given to the revision petitioners while appointing the Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No.492 of 2011 and the order of appointment of Advocate Commissioner was an ex-parte one and though it was stated in the report of the Advocate Commissioner that the defendants https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ were identified by the plaintiff during inspection, no attempt was made by the Advocate Commissioner to serve notice on the defendants and the defendants were not present at the time of inspection by the Advocate Commissioner and therefore the application was filed to reissue the warrant of Commissioner to note the present features of the suit property

¶18

¶19

and it was not property appreciated.

¶20

I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The Court below has rightly dismissed the application holding that no objection was filed to the report of the Advocate Commissioner and even though the written statement was filed in the month of October 2011, the suit was posted in the list on 14.09.2012 and the PW.1 was examined in chief on that date and report of the Advocate Commissioner and plan were exhibited as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and the case was adjourned to 27.09.2012 and on that date the application was filed by the revision petitioner. Further, it is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the application filed by the petitioner that no acceptable reason has been stated for re-issuance of warrant of Commissioner. Hence, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application and I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Court below and hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed .

¶21

No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The Principal District Munsif Court, Karur.

¶28

GSR

¶29

TS/01.04.2013/2P-2C

¶30

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.147 of 2013

¶31

18.03.2013

¶32

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

Seethalakshmi v. Logambal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seethalakshmi v. Logambal

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

S.Anandaraja,President, Vs the Supdt. of Police

A.Ghandeeban, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P. Pon Saravanan, Vs the Inspector of Police

Samuvel Rathinaraj Vs Malker Nisha

Sheik Beer, Vs Sheik Mydeen

Dharmaraj Vs Sirungeri Nagar Welfare