V.Vasanthan v. S.Ramalingam
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court allowed Civil Revision Petition setting aside the order appointing an Advocate Commissioner in a bare injunction suit. The Court held a party cannot collect evidence this way and possession questions require oral/documentary proof.
What did the court decide?
Set aside the order passed in I.A.No.3948 of 2016 appointing an Advocate Commissioner.
What the court decided
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.788 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.3894 of 2017
V.Vasanthan
... Petitioner
Vs.
S.Ramalingam
... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.3948 of 2016 in O.S.No.548 of 2015 dated 17.11.2016 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to identify a suit property in a bare injunction suit is permissible.
Whether an Advocate Commissioner can determine possession in a suit for bare injunction.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
V. Vasanthan
- respondent
S. Ramalingam
Coram
M. Duraiswamy
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court