Dismissed

V.Paramadas v. Krishnavaka Educational Trust

Madras HC21 Jan 2015CRP(MD)/79/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition was filed against the dismissal of an application for the appointment of a Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C in an appeal. The court dismissed the revision, holding that the petitioners were not bona fide in filing the application at the appellate stage after their suit was dismissed. The court exercised its discretion not to appoint a Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition and the connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed.

V.Paramadas Vs Krishnavaka Educational Trust — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.01.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.79 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015

1.V.Paramadas

2.K.Sivadhanu Pillai

3.C.Raveendran

4.P.Sakthitharan

5.P.Sasthavoo : Petitioners/Petitioners/Appellants

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.Krishnavaka Educational Trust, Represented by its President Dwaraka, Kalliancaudu, Nagercoil 2, Kanyakumari District.

¶14

2.S.Marthanda Pillai

¶15

3.Dr.K.Padmadas

¶16

4.V.Moniokendeswarakumar

¶17

(Respondents 2 and 3 were set ex-parte before

¶18

the Court below)

¶19

:Respondents/Respondents/Respondents

¶20

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C, against the fair and decretal order dated 21.11.2014 passed in I.A.No.115 of 2014 in A.S.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Nagercoil.

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The plaintiffs, who filed the suit for declaration that they are the shareholders in the first defendant Trust, has filed the above revision challenging the order refusing to appoint a Commissioner.

¶24

The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Hence, appeal in A.S.No.1 of 2014 was filed before the Principal Sub-Judge, Nagarcoil. In the said appeal, the application to appoint a Commissioner was filed by the petitioners for the purpose of identifying and locating the properties scheduled in the exchange deed, dated 29.08.2005. The said application was dismissed by the Sub-Court, Nagercoil. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

Under Order 26 Rule 9, the Court though has got discretion to appoint a Commissioner, the Court is not bound to do so in every case. In the case on hand, the petitioners have not made out how the result of the local investigation would help the proper adjudication of the appeal. The plaintiffs are not bonafide in filing the application at the appellate stage as they did not file the same before the trial Court and having got the suit dismissed, to gather evidence, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to file this application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. If the appellate Court is unable to come to a conclusion in adjudicating the matter in its proper perspective, it is always open to the Court to issue commission for the purpose, which may be required. Besides, the report of the Commissioner is not binding on the Court. Hence, there is no necessity to appoint a Commissioner at the appellate stage. There is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the order of the trial Court.

¶28

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶31

/True copy/

¶32

sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

¶34

¶35

The Principal Sub-Judge, Nagercoil.

¶36

+1cc to MR.D.NALL THAMBI,ADVOCATE IN SR NO.2770

¶37

Order made in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.79 of 2015 21.01.2015

¶38

RG.25.02.2015 2P.3C.

¶39

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

V.Paramadas v. Krishnavaka Educational Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Paramadas v. Krishnavaka Educational Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendran, Vs R.Mani

P.M.Abdul Azeez Vs Dr.K.H.Salim

Dr.(Mrs).Vasantha Elango Vs Dr.(Mr.)Vijayakumar Chellaiah

Solaiammal Vs Saminathan

R.Gopinathan, Vs G.a.Hema

I.Palanichamy, Vs Uthirappa Naicker