The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial Court's order rejecting an application for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The Court held that plaintiffs must prove their case by evidence and found no error in the lower court's decision.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition 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 : 06.03.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
C.R.P.(PD).No.759 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.3776 of 2017
Sougoumar (Died)
1.Devanathane
2.S.Malini
3.S.Uma Mageswary
4.S.Ranga Pradeep Kumar ... Petitioners
Vs.
Raji
... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.570 of 2015 in O.S.No.654 of 2006 dated 14.12.2016 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.C.Vishwanth
O R D E R
Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.570 of 2015 in O.S.No.654 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry, the plaintiffs have filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2
2.The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.654 of 2006 for declaration, recovery of possession and for permanent injunction.
3.The defendant filed her written statement and is contesting the suit. In the said suit, the plaintiffs took out an application in I.A.No.570 of 2015 seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features. The application filed by the plaintiffs seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner was opposed by the defendant stating that there is no necessity for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The trial Court, taking into consideration the case of both parties, dismissed the application finding that earlier on three occasions Advocate Commissioners were appointed. However, the Advocate Commissioners could not execute the warrant of commission. Further, the trial Court observed that the Commissioner applications are kept pending for more than eight years.
4.It is settled position that the plaintiffs have to establish their case by adducing proper evidence and they cannot collect evidence through Advocate Commissioner. When the suit was filed in the year 2003, even after a lapse of 13 years, the trial Court has not disposed of the suit. In these
3
circumstances, the observation of the trial Court that the appointment of Advocate Commissioner is unnecessary, is perfectly correct.
5.I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the trial
Court. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : No Internet : Yes va To
06.03.2017
The I Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry.
4
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
va
C.R.P.(PD).No.759 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.3776 of 2017
06.03.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial Court's observation that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was unnecessary due to lack of necessity and existing pendency.
Sougoumar (Died) 1.Devanathane 2.S.Malini 3.S.Uma Mageswary 4.S.Ranga Pradeep Kumar
Raji
M.Duraiswamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
