Dismissed

L. Babu v. Shyla Jayaram

Madras HC27 Jun 2016CRP/1404/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision petition filed challenging an order upholding the admission of a civil suit alleging violation of a building plan. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that an Advocate Commissioner's report is not conclusive on merits and denying its examination as a preliminary issue does not violate natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; no costs; connected misc. petition closed.

L. Babu Vs Shyla Jayaram — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.06.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶6

Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.1404 of 2016 &

¶7

C.M.P.No.7812 of 2016

L.Babu

... Petitioner

1.Shyla Jayaram

The Udhagamandalam Municipality a Statutory body constituted under the Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act Rep.by its Commissioner Ooty

¶13

3.The State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Collector of Nilgiris Ootacamund

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

¶16

praying to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.1229/2015 in O.S.No.76 of 2002

¶17

dated 23.03.2016 on the file of learned District Munsiff, Udhagamandalam.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Elambharathi

O R D E R

This revision arises against the order of learned District Munsiff,

¶23

Udhagamandalam, passed in I.A.No.1229/2015 in O.S.No.76 of 2002 dated 23.03.2016.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.

¶25

First respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit alleging violation of the building plan in construction put up by the petitioner/first defendant. He has also impleaded the Udhagamandalam Municipality as the second defendant. Petitioner had moved I.A.No.1009 of 2006, raising the question of maintainability of the suit and requiring that the same to be tried as a preliminary issue. Such application was allowed under order of this Court in CRP.(PD)No.1346 of 2004, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who according to the petitioner has submitted a report that the petitioner has not indulged in any violation. The petitioner moved I.A.No.1229 of 2015 towards examination of such Advocate Commissioner before the examination of other witnesses contending that the Commissioner's Report absolves him of wrong doing and the consequence would be that the plaintiff's suit is bad and plaintiff out to be non suited. Such a plea rightly has been negatived by the Court below

¶26

as permitting the same would amount to denying the respondent/plaintiff an opportunity to prove her case. As is well known an Advocate Commissioner

¶27

¶28

report never can be the be-all and end-all in deciding the merits of a particular

¶29

case. The order under challenge calls for no interference. We affirm the findings of the Court below on Or.14.R.2(ii) C.P.C Civil Revision Petition is

¶30

dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

27.06.2016

¶32

Index:yes/no Internet:yes To The District Munsiff, Udhagamandalam.

C.T.SELVAM, J

kpr

Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.1404 of 2016

¶37

27.06.2016

L. Babu v. Shyla Jayaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L. Babu v. Shyla Jayaram

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

S. Muthusarala Vs S. Solomon Raja

A.Victoriya, Vs Tamil Selvan

S.Vijayakumari Vs N.Bagaiyalakshmi

Selvaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Kannan Vs M. Murugesan

Mr.G.Mani Vs Mrs.Soundari