Dismissed

K Sellappan v. R.D. Rajendra Nayudu

Madras HC15 Jun 2016CRP/1990/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing civil revision petitions challenging orders in a property title suit, the Court held the subordinate judge's decisions to allow impleading of parties and dismiss an Advocate Commissioner application reflected reasonable views warranting no interference.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the subordinate judge's order allowing impleading of defendants and dismissing the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.

K Sellappan Vs R.D. Rajendra Nayudu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.06.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶6

Civil Revision Petition (PD) Nos.1990 & 1991 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶7

1.K.Sellappan 2.MAdheswaran 3.Arulmani

¶8

... Petitioners in both cases

¶9

¶10

1.R.D.Rajendra Nayudu

¶11

... first Respondent in both cases

¶12

2.The Superintending Engineer Tamilnadu Electricity Board Paramathi Road, Namakkal TK & Dt

¶13

3.The Divisional Engineer (O&M) Tamilnadu Electricity Board Mohanur Road Namakkal Taluk Namakkal District

¶14

4.The Deputy Divisional Engineer (O&M) Tamilnadu Electricity Board Kalappanaickenpatti Namakkal Taluk Namakkal District

¶15

5.The Junior Engineer (O & M) Tamilnadu Electricity Board Solakadu, Kollimalai Taluk Namakkal District ... Respondents 2 to 5

¶16

¶17

Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders of learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, passed in I.A.Nos.616 and 653 of 2013 in O.S.No.220 of 2012 on 21.08.2014.

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents : Mr.S.Mohana Sundararajan for R1 No Appearance for R3 to 5

¶19

¶20

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶21

These revisions challenge the orders of learned Subordinate Judge,

¶22

Namakkal, passed in I.A.Nos.616 and 653 of 2013 in O.S.No.220 of 2012 on 21.08.2014.

¶23

The respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 220 of 2012, who has sought

¶24

relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The respondent/plaintiff moved I.A.No.653/2013 towards impleading further defendants in the suit filed by him. Such I.A was allowed and there against C.R.P.(PD)No.1991 of 2015 is preferred. The petitioners/defendants moved I.A.No.616 of 2013 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. On the dismissal there of C.R.P.(PD) No.1990 of 2015 is filed.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for first respondent.

¶26

¶27

In allowing I.A.No.653 of 2013, Court below has taken into

¶28

consideration the respondent/plaintiff's contention that he had acquired title to the property ancestrally and the defendants who had no right over the property created documents and revenue records towards exhibiting their possession thereof. Further, in the written statement defendants had contended that they had constructed a house on the property and they have applied for electricity connection. Court below felt it necessary to scrutinize the entire facts, since the relief sought was one of declaration. It further observed that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners by allowing the application and the relevance of impleading the proposed parties 4 to 7 could be validated during trial. In dismissing I.A.No.616 of 2013 moved by the petitioners/defendants the Court below has reasoned that an Advocate Commissioner could not be appointed towards gathering evidence. Both orders reflect a reasonable and a possible view and while so, this Court cannot interfere.

¶29

Accordingly, these Civil Revision petitions are dismissed. No Costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

15.06.2016

¶31

Index:yes/no Internet:yes

C.T.SELVAM, J

kpr

The Subordinate Judge, Namakkal

¶37

Civil Revision Petition (PD) Nos.1990 & 1991 of 2016

¶38

15.06.2016

K Sellappan v. R.D. Rajendra Nayudu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Sellappan v. R.D. Rajendra Nayudu

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

T. Venkatapathy, Vs S.R. Sridhar

V.Subathra Vs N.Rengarajan

V. Chendroyan, Vs N. Srinivasan

R.Saranya Vs G.Ranjith Gowdhaman

B.Suganya Vs Dhanalakshmi

M. Ilakaya Vs P. Ezhilarasu