In a revision petition, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the petitioner's appeal against the District Munsif's dismissal of an application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to measure disputed land with a surveyor and correlate it with revenue records.
The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.424 of 2016 dated 22.09.2016 was set aside.
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
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.06.2017 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.312 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD)No.1554 of 2017
Arankulavan
... Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs.
Thilagavathi ... Respondent/Respondent/Defendant
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.424 of 2016 in O.S.No.202 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, dated 02.09.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vamanan For Respondent : Mr.N.Balakrishnan
O R D E R
This revision petition is directed against the dismissal of application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C., seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property with village accounts, revenue records and measure the property with the help of Surveyor to correlate the document and the physical feature found.
2
attempting to gather evidence to prove his case through Commissioner's report. It is also observed by the learned District Munsif, Aranthangi that the plaintiff can prove the occupied extent in the suit property by way of adducing oral and documentary evidence.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-I)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The District Munsif, Aranthangi.
+1cc to Mr.K.Vamanan, Advocate Sr.No.59717
MM/AKV
VB/MR/SAR3/20.06.2017/2P/3C
C.R.P.(MD)No.312 of 2017 08.06.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the dismissal of an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure disputed property.
Whether the lower court erred in rejecting the suggestion of the Advocate Commissioner that revenue records and surveyor measurement are necessary to ascertain encroachment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arankulavan
Thilagavathi
G.JAYACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court