In a civil revision petition under Article 227, the Madras High Court dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of an application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The bench held that boundaries prevail over survey numbers and found no justification for interfering with the lower court's decision.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.1723 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.9169 of 2016
Krishnamurthy @ Krishnan (deceased)
vs
K.S.Subramaniam S/o.Subbayya Naicker ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of learned II Additional District Munsif, Erode, passed in I.A.No.323 of 2015 in O.S.No.397 of 2008, on 20.01.2016.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondent : Mr.M.Guruprasad *****
2
O R D E R
This revision arises against the order of learned II Additional District Munsif, Erode, passed in I.A.No.323 of 2015 in O.S.No.397 of 2008, on 20.01.2016.
3
contention of the plaintiffs that the Advocate Commissioner has inspected the property and filed his report without informing the plaintiffs, has been negated by the Court below since the report of the Advocate Commissioner informs that the parties duly have been informed of the inspection date as 11.09.2015 and upon the request of plaintiffs, it was postponed to 11.10.2015 and when the plaintiffs requested for further time, the Advocate Commissioner after informing the parties over phone, inspected the property on 11.10.2015. Moreover, the second plaintiff was available at the site during inspection and he has refused to receive notice. The Court below found that no further report
of an Advocate Commissioner is necessary.
4
The Civil Revision Petition, accordingly, is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.06.2016
Index:yes/no Internet:yes gm To The II Additional District Munsif, Erode.
5
C.T.SELVAM, J
gm
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.1723 of 2016
21.06.2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the dismissal of an application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for revisiting a suit property.
Whether a discrepancy between the survey number and the boundaries of the property suffices to warrant a fresh survey.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
K.S.Subramaniam S/o.Subbayya Naicker
K.S.Sampoornam W/o.Late Krishnamurthy @ Krishnan
K.Parameswaran S/o.Late Krishnamurthy @ Krishnan
D.Shamugapriya W/o.A.Thangaraj
K.Duraisamy S/o.Late Krishnamurthy @ Krishnan
C.T.Selvam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
