Disposed

Murugesan v. M/S. Asian Traders

Madras HC9 Feb 2015CRP(MD)/205/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court held that an ex parte appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the value of suit property and improvements in a suit for permanent injunction was illegal.:settled law prohibits appointing a Commissioner to gather evidence.

What did the court decide?

The order appointing an ex parte Commissioner in I.A.No.796 of 2014 was set aside. The Civil Revision Petition was disposed of allowing the plaintiff to note physical features by other methods.

Murugesan Vs M/S. Asian Traders — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.02.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶5

CRP(MD).No.205 of 2015 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015

¶6

Murugaesan : Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s. Asian Traders, rep. through Partner C. Periyasamy S/o. Chinnappa goundar : Respondent

¶9

Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition against the petition and order passed in I.A.No.796 of 2014 in O.S.No.541 of 2014 dated 22.12.2014, on the file of the District Munsif Court, karur.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. H. Arumugam

¶11

For Respondent : Mr. M.P. Senthil

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly evicting of the possession in the suit property, unless by due process of law. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has also filed an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to fix the value of the suit property and other relevant features. The Commissioner was appointed, without issuing notice to the defendant ex parte. Challenging the same, the revision petitioner / defendant has come up with the above revision.

¶14

It is settled principles of law that in the suit for injunction no commissioner can be appointed for gathering evidence and report the factum of possession.

¶15

In this case, the plaintiff has averred that he is running business in the name and style of "Asian Traders" and he had improved the suit premises by erecting wood works, cupboard works and done interior decoration. It is further contended by the plaintiff that he has also invested several Lakhs of Rupees in the said improvement done for his business which are permanent one. Therefore, if the plaintiff is evicted by the defendant suddenly the business would be put to heavy loss. Therefore, he is seeking for appointment of Commissioner.

¶16

No doubt the Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of the relief sought for by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff wants to establish the improvement done in the business and evaluate the stock he can do so by himself by means of other evidence. The Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of gathering evidence.

¶17

Therefore, the order of ex parte Commissioner passed in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ I.A.No.796 of 2014 in O.S.No.541 of 2014 dated 22.12.2014 by the learned District Munsif Court, karur is set aside.

¶18

¶19

However, it is open to the plaintiff to establish any other method to note down the physical features and to evaluate the improvements done by him in the premises.

¶20

With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶23

/TRUE COPY/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The District Munsif, Karur.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.H.Arumugam,Advocate, SR.No.5821 +1cc to Mr.M.P.Senthil,Advocate, SR.No.5937

¶28

CRP(MD).No.205 of 2015 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 09.02.2015

¶29

trp

¶30

PA/20.02.15/2P/4C

¶31

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

Murugesan v. M/S. Asian Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugesan v. M/S. Asian Traders

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

M.Swaminathan, Vs Muthukaruppan

K.Selvin Sundara Nayakamani, Vs Y.Jeyapaul

Nagarani, Vs K.Nanthakumar

R.S.Sumathi Vs Sri Saraswathi Finance Co.

Ramachandra Textile Vs Sri Masammal

The Executive Officer, Vs T. Ramalingam