Dismissed

S.K. Krishnaraj v. Komathi Sundar

Madras HC6 Feb 2015CRP/1841/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in a property dispute as infructuous because the commissioner had already filed his report and plan, granting liberty to object to the report thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed as infructuous; liberty granted to file objections to the commissioner's report.

S.K. Krishnaraj Vs Komathi Sundar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.02.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶6

C.R.P.(PD).No.1841 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶7

1.S.K.Krishnaraj 2.S.G.Lakshmi Devi

¶8

... Petitioners / Defendants

¶9

.. Vs ..

¶10

Komathi Sundar

¶11

... Respondent / Plaintiff

¶12

Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the petition and docket order dated 31.10.2013 made in I.a.No.1054 of 2013 in O.S.No.118 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif at Sathyamangalam.

¶13

For Petitioners : M/s.Srinath Sridevan

¶14

For Respondent : M/s.N.Manokaran

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.118 of 2013 on the file of District Munsif, Sathyamangalam. The plaintiff filed

¶18

¶19

I.A.No.1054 of 2013 seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property and fix northern boundary as per the partition deed dated 02.09.2004 with the help of a qualified surveyor and also to note down the physical features of the suit property. The petition was resisted by the defendants by filing a counter. The learned District Munsiff, Sathyamangalam, on 31.10.2013 appointed an Advocate Commissioner. Challenging the order, the petitioners have preferred the present revision.

¶20

Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Advocate Commissioner had already visited the property on 18.01.2014 and filed his report alongwith plan on 03.04.2014. However, the revision has been filed in the month of May 2014.

¶21

Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel for the

¶22

petitioners submitted that this revision is filed challenging the very appointment of the Advocate Commissioner.

¶23

Considering the fact that the Advocate Commissioner has already filed his report, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous giving liberty to the petitioners to file their objections

¶24

¶25

to the report, if any. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶26

06.02.2015

¶27

Internet : Yes/No rgr

¶28

¶29

The District Munsif, Sathyamangalam.

¶30

¶31

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J. rgr

¶32

Order in C.R.P.(PD).No.1841 of 2014

¶33

06.02.2015

S.K. Krishnaraj v. Komathi Sundar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.K. Krishnaraj v. Komathi Sundar

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

Mohan Breweries and Vs Mr. D.L. Sukumar

Mohan, S/O.Sambandham Vs Mani, S/O.Vaithilingam

G. Harihara Rajan Vs Niamuthullah

Kalimuthu, S/O.Subbiah Vs Chellappan

Chinnammal, W/O.Kandasamy Vs Lakshmi, W/O.Jayaraj

D. Govindarajan Vs Leelavathy