Partly allowed

B. Senthilkumar v. Mr. B. Rahinakumar

Madras HC7 Feb 2018CRP/2889/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging an ex-parte order appointing an Advocate Commissioner in a property suit. The High Court modified the order to direct service of notice on petitioners before the Commissioner inspects the property and submits a fresh report.

What did the court decide?

Order modified to direct Advocate Commissioner to serve notice on petitioners before inspecting the property and submitting a fresh report within four weeks.

B. Senthilkumar Vs Mr. B. Rahinakumar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.02.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP (PD) No. 2889 of 2017
and
CMP. No.13849 of 2017
1. B. Senthilkumar
2. Babu .. Petitioners
Vs
1. B. Rathinakumar
2. Paranthaman .. Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 21.03.2017 in I.A.No.712 of 2017 in O.S.No.45 of 2017 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Maduranthakam and pass further orders.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.V. Chandrakanthan

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.D. Murthy

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated

¶14

21.03.2017 in I.A.No.712 of 2017 in O.S.No.45 of 2017 on the file of the

¶15

learned District Munsif, Maduranthakam.

¶16

The petitioners filed a suit in O.S. NO.148 of 2016 for permanent

¶17

injunction. Subsequently, the respondents filed the suit in O.S. No.45 of 2017 along with I.A. No.712 of 2017 under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC, praying for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property with the assistance of a Taluk Surveyor and submit his report.

¶18

According to the petitioners, without any notice to them, an ex-parte order has been passed, appointing an Advocate Commissioner on 21.03.2017. Challenging the said order, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

¶20

petitioners may be given an opportunity by serving due notice to them,

¶21

at the time of inspection by the Advocate Commissioner.

¶22

The aforesaid submission of the petitioners could not be

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

¶25

seriously disputed by the respondents, since an opportunity has to be

¶26

given to the petitioners at the time of inspection of the suit property, by the Advocate Commissioner.

¶27

In the light of the above, the order passed by the court below is

¶28

modified to the extent of directing the learned Advocate Commissioner

¶29

to serve notice on the petitioners and then inspect the suit property.

¶30

Thereafter, he shall submit a fresh report before the court below, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

The Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed, with the above

¶32

direction. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶33

07.02.2018

¶34

Index: Yes/ No

¶35

Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order

¶36

avr

¶37

¶38

The District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam.

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶40

¶41

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,

¶42

avr

¶43

CRP (PD) No. 2889 of 2017
and
CMP. No.13849 of 2017
07.02.2018

¶44

http://www.judis.nic.in

B. Senthilkumar v. Mr. B. Rahinakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Senthilkumar v. Mr. B. Rahinakumar

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

L. Suresh Reddy Vs Krishnappa

K. Kannaki Vs K. Kalimuthu (Deceased)

R.Devadass Vs R.Govindarajan

V. Bharani Vs N. Rangaraj

Sandhya Vs Mr.a.Noor Mohammed

Sivakumar, S/O. Pavadai, NO.25 Vs Kalaiarasi