Dismissed

Sevugan v. Jeyaprakash

Madras HC8 Jan 2015CRP(MD)/2619/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order refusing appointment of a Commissioner in a permanent injunction suit. The court held a Commissioner cannot be appointed to find possession facts where the plaintiff has already lost the suit and possesses no other evidence.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed; no costs awarded; the connected Miscellaneous Petition was also dismissed.

Sevugan Vs Jeyaprakash — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 8/1/2015

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶5

C.R.P. NPD(MD) No.2619 of 2014

¶6

and MP(MD)no.2 of 2014

¶7

Sevugan

¶8

Malaisamy

¶9

Prema

¶10

Priya ... Petitioners/Petitioners/Appellants

¶11

¶12

Jayaprakash ... Respondent/Respondent/Respondent

¶13

Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Melur Camp Court in I.A.No.178 of 2012 in A.S.No.49 of 2011 dated 11/6/2013.

¶14

For petitioner ... Mr.Jeyakarthik

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order refusing to appoint a Commissioner in the first appeal.

¶17

The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner interfering with their peaceful possession. After elaborate trial, the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an appeal. In the appeal, the plaintiff/appellant filed I.A.No.178 of 2012 for appointing a Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property. The Sub-Court, Melur, after hearing both the sides had dismissed the application on the ground that in a suit for bare injunction, Commissioner cannot be appointed to find out the factum of possession. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

¶19

In this case, the suit has been dismissed against the plaintiffs. A Commissioner cannot be appointed to gather evidence, especially in the suit for injunction where only the factum of possession has to be gone into. The plaintiff having lost the suit before the trial Court cannot ask for appointment of Commissioner in an injunction suit. He has to prove his possession only by other evidence that is available. Therefore, the learned Subordinate Judge, Melur is right in dismissing the application and hence there is no merit in this Civil Revision Petition warranting interference.

¶20

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The Subordinate Judge, Melur.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik, Advocate, in SR. No.1269.

¶27

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No.2619 of 2014 and MP(MD)No.2 of 2014 8/1/2015

¶28

mvs

¶29

msm 14.02.2015 p2/3c

¶30

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

Sevugan v. Jeyaprakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sevugan v. Jeyaprakash

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

A.Sukumaran Vs a.Prince

V.Meenakshisundaram, Vs S.Mahendran

Ellammal, Vs Lakshmiammal

Sivakasi Subhshan Gori Vs Sivakasi Subhaskhan Gori

Nambiappa Chettiar, Vs Subramania Naidu(Died)

P.Balakrishnan, Vs a.Masilamoni