A Civil Revision Petition challenging the District Munsif Court's order appointing an Advocate Commissioner for a suit regarding property title, where the lower court doubted the applicability of a report from an earlier suit involving the same parties.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
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: 09.06.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(PD)No.1819 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.8724 of 2017
1.Velmurugan
2.Arul Prakasam
3.Indira
4.Arul Jothi
Vs.
Anbazhagan .. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 29.11.2016 made in I.A.No.451 of 2014 in O.S.No.90 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Kadarkarai
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 29.11.2016 made in I.A.No.451 of 2014 in O.S.No.90 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti.
2
2.The petitioners are the defendants and respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.90 of 2014. The respondent filed the suit for declaration of title and injunction and along with the suit, the respondent filed I.A.No.451 of 2014 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and measure the same with the help of surveyor and file his report. The petitioners filed written statement on 17.03.2015 and are contesting the suit.
3
was dismissed, against which, the respondent has filed C.R.P.No.1272 of 2016 before this Court and the same is pending. In view of the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner in O.S.No.73 of 2014, the present application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner is not necessary.
4
perused the materials available on record.
by the petitioners, Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the suit schedule property with the help of the surveyor. The learned Judge has not properly considered the said Commissioner's report and erroneously held that it is not clear whether the property mentioned in the Advocate Commissioner's report relates to the suit schedule property.
5
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.06.2017
Index : Yes/No dm/kj
To
The District Munsif Court, Panruti, Cuddalore District.
6
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
dm/kj
C.R.P.(PD)No.1819 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.8724 of 2017
09.06.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the learned trial Judge refusing to accept the earlier Advocate Commissioner's report for the present suit.
Whether the appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the present suit is necessary in view of the report filed in earlier litigation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Velmurugan
Arul Prakasam
Indira
Arul Jothi
Anbazhagan
V.M.Velumani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
