Dismissed

Krishnamoorthy v. P.K.Ravichandran

Madras HC9 Jul 2014CRP/2479/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition seeking to set aside an order dismissing an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The Court held the petition was not maintainable because the revision petitioners failed to apply to scrap the existing Commissioner's report, even though they had raised objections to it. Consequently, the avenue for fresh appointment did not exist. T

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with no costs.

Krishnamoorthy Vs P.K.Ravichandran — Property and Title | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED:09.07.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶6

CRP (PD) No.2479 of 2014

¶7

Krishnamoorthy

¶8

Murugesan

¶9

Ramasamy .. Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

P.K.Ravichandran

¶12

P.K.Palanisamy

¶13

P.A.Sekar

¶14

Subramaniyam

¶15

Prakash

¶16

Narendiran .. Respondents

¶17

Prayer : Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 11.04.2014 made in I.A.No.405 of 2013 in O.S.No.209 of 2012 passed by the District Munsif Court, Palladam.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nagarajan

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The revision petitioners herein has filed this Civil Revision Petition praying to set aside the order dated 11.04.2014 made in I.A.No.405 of 2013 in O.S.No.209 of 2012 passed by the District Munsif Court, Palladam.

¶21

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the respondents 1 & 2 herein as plaintiffs filed a suit for bare injunction in respect of two items of properties. He further submitted that in the first item of the suit properties, a cart track is there, which is the subject matter in the suit and the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 herein encroached upon the cart track. Hence, it is necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and measure the suit property. But, the trial Court has not considered the same in proper perspective and dismissed the application, against which, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶23

At the time of admission, the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners is heard at length.

¶24

I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel

¶25

appearing for the revision petitioners and perused the typed set of papers.

¶26

The respondents 1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs filed a suit for bare

¶27

injunction in respect of two items of the properties. In the first item of the property, it was stated the property is included with half share in the common cart track allotted to an extent of 0.12 acres with all its appurtenances attached thereon.

¶28

¶29

At this juncture, it is appropriate to incorporate item No.1 of the

¶30

properties.

¶31

“Item No.1:-

¶32

In Tirupur District, Palladam taluk, Madhapur village, in S.F.No.757/2 an extent of 1.25 acres of agricultural land situated within the following boundaries,

¶33

Northern side	-	East West Road
Southern side	-	2^ndplaintiff's item 2 of the property
Eastern side	-	S.F.756 and
Western side	-	North South cart track in
		S.F.757/1

¶34

with common half share in the well situated in 0.05 acres and 6 H.P.electricity service connection effected in S.C.1032, and another half share in an unused well with 7.5 HP along with an electricity service connection effected in S.C.179, including half share in the common cart track allotted with an extent of 0.12 acres with all its appurtenances attached thereon.”

¶35

It is also an admitted fact that the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 herein also filed an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, which was allowed and the Advocate Commissioner measured the suit property with the help of the Surveyor and filed his report, wherein, the revision petitioners herein filed an objection. However, the defendants therein filed a fresh application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, without filing an application to scrap the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner, which is not permitted by law.

¶36

¶37

The prayer sought for in the application was to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical feature of the suit property and other properties and in and around the suit properties and measure the suit properties by Commissioner with assistance of Taluk Surveyor and fix the western boundary of suit properties and Eastern boundary of S.F.No.757/1 of Madhapur Village, Palladam Taluk and direct the Commissioner to file detailed report with plan.

¶38

As already stated, the Commissioner was appointed at the instance of the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 herein and the Commissioner also filed his report. Even though the revision petitioners filed an objection, they did not file an application to scrap the Advocate Commissioner's report before filing the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, in such circumstances, I

¶39

am of the view that this Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable.

¶40

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶41

09.07.2014

¶42

ogy

¶43

To The District Munsif Court, Palladam.

R.MALA,J.

ogy

CRP (PD) No.2479 of 2014

¶48

09.07.2014

Krishnamoorthy v. P.K.Ravichandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnamoorthy v. P.K.Ravichandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nallammal Vs Palaniammal

Smt.Radhammal Vs Mr. Baskar

Papamma Vs Venkatamma

Suseela Vs M.F.Rukshana Begam

Kanthilal Vs Pushpadevi

F.Irudayaraj Vs Mrs.I.Epsiba