Partly allowed

Rm. Meyyapan v. Leena Raheja

Madras HC13 Mar 2017CRP/774/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a civil revision petition challenging an order that dismissed an application to scrap a report of an Advocate Commissioner. The High Court held that since the trial court dismissed the application on procedural grounds without considering merits, the petition was maintainable and set aside the order for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 23.08.2016 in I.A.No.64 of 2016 is set aside and the matter remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration on merits.

Rm. Meyyapan Vs Leena Raheja — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.03.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)No.774 of 2017

¶7

and C.M.P.No.3833 2017

Rm.Meyyappan

... Petitioner

Mrs.Leena Reheja W/o.Shri Shyamal

¶12

2.Mr.Shyamlal

¶13

Mr.Deepak Raheja

¶14

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. By its Commissioner (Zone 7), Ambattur, Chennai 600 053

¶15

The Corporation of Chennai, Rep. By its Commissioner, Ripon Buildings, Park Town, Chennai 600 003

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

C.R.P filed under section 227 of C.P.C., to set-aside the fair and decreetal order dated 23.08.2016 passed in I.A.No.64 of 2016 in O.S.No.117 of 2013 on the file of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. J.R.K.Bhavanantham

¶19

For Respondent : Mr.L.Dhamodaran

¶20

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶23

Challenging the order dated 23.08.2016 passed in I.A.No.64 of 2016 in O.S.No.117 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

¶24

The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.117 of 2013 for recovery of possession, permanent injunction, for damages and for past and future damages.

¶25

The defendants filed their written statement and are contesting the suit. In the said suit, it is brought to the notice of this Court that this Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to find out the physical features and to identify the property with the assistance of a Taluk Surveyor. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and filed his report. The plaintiff

¶26

¶27

filed his objections to the Commissioner's report. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.64 of 2016 to scrap the Advocate Commissioner's report and to appoint another Advocate Commissioner and to inspect the suit property. The application filed by the plaintiff was opposed by the defendants stating that there is no necessity for craping the report of the Commissioner. The trial Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff stating that the application has been filed at the premature stage and the plaintiff should have filed an application only at the time of marking the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan.

¶28

5.Since the trial Court had dismissed the application on this ground, it has not gone into the merits of the application and decided the case. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the application filed by the plaintiff to scrap the Advocate Commissioner's report is very much maintainable at this stage and hence the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.64 of 2016 is liable to be set aside.

¶29

Accordingly, the order dated 23.08.2016 passed in I.A.No.64 of 2016 in O.S.No.117 of 2013 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the III Additional District Judge, Tiruvellore at Poonamallee for fresh

¶30

¶31

consideration. The III Additional District Judge, Tiruvellore at

¶32

M. DURAISWAMY,J.,

¶33

¶34

Poonamallee is directed to decide the matter afresh on merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

13.03.2017

¶37

¶38

To The III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee.

¶39

C.R.P.(PD)No.774 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.3833 2017

¶40

13.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in

Rm. Meyyapan v. Leena Raheja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rm. Meyyapan v. Leena Raheja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. U. Srisuganaya @ Vs M. Arulraj

K. Radhalakshmi Vs M/S. Thirupathy

K. Balaboopathy Vs Vikram K. Jain

Revathi Vs P. Ravikumar

Julanda Premila Vs a.John Morries(a)Morris

Mr.B.Gulgresh Vs Mrs.Gayathri Devi