High Court allowed a civil revision petition setting aside a trial court order that refused to reopen an application for property inspection. The trial court erred by closing the application due to the commissioner's default instead of ensuring execution.
Trial court order set aside; I.A.No.316/2013 allowed; case directed to be disposed by 31st August 2016.
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: 22.04.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR
C.R.P (PD) No.4707 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
1.Muthusamy 2.Nachimuthu Karuppasamy (died) 3.Karunai Ammal 4.Mohanraj 5.Mohanambal ... Petitioners
vs.
1.Nanjappa Gounder 2.Thangavelu 3.Santhamani
4.Rayappa Gounder ...Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order of the District Munsif Court, Palladam dated 26.03.2015 made in I.A.No.316 of 2013 in O.S.No.16 of 2001.
For Petitioners : Ms.V.Diviabharathi For Respondent : No Appearance
O R D E R
Though the respondents have been served with notice and their names have been printed in the cause list, they have not chosen to enter appearance. Hence this court deems it appropriate to pass an order, after hearing the submissions to be made on the side of the petitioners. Accordingly, the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners in the revision petition are heard.
2
3
said application holding the said application to be belated and aimed at prolonging the case. It is as against the said order, the present civil revision petition has been filed.
4
to close the said petition. As such, the prayer made by the revision petitioners for reopening of the said petition and for reissuance of the warrant, either to the very same Commissioner or to any other Commissioner, cannot be said to be either malafide or unwarranted. Hence the order of the Court below, which is impugned in this revision, is liable to be interfered with.
In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order of the trial court dated 26.03.2015 made in I.A.No.316/2013 in I.A.No.364/2008 in O.S.No.16/2001 pending on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Palladam is set aside. I.A.No.316/2013 shall stand allowed. The trial court shall take up I.A.No.364/2008 for further hearing, reissue the warrant to the Commissioner already appointed or appoint a new Commissioner for the purpose of measuring the suit property with the help of Surveyor and submit a report and plan. Since the matter is of the year 2001, the trial court is directed to complete the said process without further loss of time, thereafter conduct the trial on a day to day basis and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, in any event on or before the 31st day of August 2016. However, there shall be no order as to cos. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.04.2016
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No asr To
The District Munsif, Palladam
5
P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J. asr/-
C.R.P (PD) No.4707 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
22.04.2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing an application to reopen a property inspection due to the Commissioner's inaction.
Muthusamy
Nanjappa Gounder
P.R. Shivakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
