Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the refusal to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to assess value of trees cut down years ago. The court held no error existed as the delay rendered the assessment purposeless.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 03.02.2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA C.R.P(MD)No.78 of 2015 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015
1.I.Palanichamy 2.P.Sakthivel 3.P.Thalaiyammal ... Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiffs Vs.
1.Uthirappa Naicker
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.205 of 2013 in O.S.No.91 of 2010, dated 21.07.2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivakasi.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Elangovan
ORDER
The revision petitioners, who are the plaintiffs, have filed the above Civil Revision Petition challenging the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.205 of 2013 in O.S.No.91 of 2010, dated 21.07.2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivakasi.
2
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Writs) /True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi.
C.R.P(MD)No.78 of 2015 03.02.2015
ps
sma/18/2/2015/2c/2p
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to assess damage caused to trees by cutting and removal constitutes an error warranting revision under Article 227.
If the alleged damage occurred years prior to the filing of the application, whether appointing a Commissioner serves any useful purpose.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
I. Palanichamy
P. Sakthivel
P. Thalaiyammal
Uthirappa Naicker
Rajaram
Pushbarani
Pushpa Sathyanarayana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
