Ramasamy v. Valli
Case brief
What is this about?
In a Civil Revision Petition under Article 226, the High Court set aside a Trial Court order refusing an Advocate Commissioner. It held that despite being filed during appeal proceedings, the appointment was necessary to ascertain physical features and easementary rights without prejudice to the respondent.
What did the court decide?
The order dismissing the I.A. is set aside; the IA is remitted to the Additional Subordinate Judge to appoint an Advocate Commissioner.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.01.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(PD)No.786 of 2015
& M.P.No.1 of 2015
Ramasamy .. Petitioner
Vs.
Valli
Rep by her Power of Attorney
Agent Subramanian .. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 07.11.2014 made in I.A.No.38 of 2014 in A.S.No.14 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge Puducherry.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sairam For Respondent : Mr.P.Veeraraghavan
O R D E R
This Civil Revision petition is filed to set aside the fair and
decretal order dated 07.11.2014 made in I.A.No.38 of 2014 in A.S.No.14 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge Puducherry.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner can be decided at a later stage if the Trial Court refused it on appeal grounds.
Whether the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in an appeal regarding easementary rights would prejudice the respondent.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Ramasamy
- respondent
Valli
Coram
V.M.Velumani
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court