Dismissed

A.Ramakrishnan v. a.Madheswaran

Madras HC9 Feb 2017CRP/354/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in a suit for permanent injunction. The court held there was no infirmity as the report would assist in adjudicating issues regarding the suit property and adjacent temple property.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed with no costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

A.Ramakrishnan Vs a.Madheswaran — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.02.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN

¶6

Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.354 of 2017 & CMP.No.1587 of 2017

¶7

A.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

A.Madheswaran ... Respondent

¶10

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 12.01.2017 made in I.A.No.1371 of 2016 in O.S.No.698 of 2016 on the file of the first Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munusamy

¶12

For Respondent : No appearance

¶13

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order

¶16

dated 12.01.2017 made in I.A.No.1371 of 2016 in O.S.No.698 of 2016 on the file

¶17

of the first Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

¶18

¶19

2.The petitioner has laid a suit for permanent injunction in respect of

¶20

S.No.90/5 on the footing that he has purchased the same under the Sale Deed dated 06.04.2016.

¶21

3.The defendant has filed his written statement contending that under the guise of the suit, the plaintiff is attempting to annex the property belonging to the Temple situated in S.No.90/6, which is just adjacent to the suit property and further stated that there is a road dividing the suit property and the property situated in S.No.90/6.

¶22

4.The defendant preferred an application for appointment of an

¶23

Advocate Commissioner to locate and identify the suit property as well as the property situated in S.No.90/6 so as to enable the court to adjudicate the issues involved between the parties as to whether any encroachment had been made by the plaintiff in the property belonging to the Temple situated in S.No.90/6. The above plea of the defendant found acceptance by the court below and accordingly, the court below has appointed an Advocate Commissioner. Impugning the same, the petitioner/plaintiff has preferred the civil revision petition. However, it has not been made out by the petitioner/plaintiff that the impugned order of the court below is erroneous

¶24

¶25

and against law.

¶26

5.It is found that considering the rival contentions of the parties and that

¶27

the report of the Advocate Commissioner would enable the court to adjudicate the issues involved between the parties, the court below has appointed the Advocate Commissioner. No infirmity is thus found with reference to the impugned order of the court below.

¶28

6.In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

09.02.2017

¶30

dn Index:yes/no Internet:yes

¶31

¶32

The first Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

T.RAVINDRAN, J

Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.354 of 2017

¶37

09.02.2017

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

A.Ramakrishnan v. a.Madheswaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Ramakrishnan v. a.Madheswaran

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

J.Mohan Vs Rukkumaniammal

Dravidamani, Vs State of Tn.

Sellappa Gounder @ Sellappan Vs Nanjappa Gounder

K.Sundarrajan Vs S.Venmathi

K.Saraswathi Vs P.Palanisamy

Kriyasakthi,W/O.Parthiban Vs Parthiban,S/O.Puratchimani