The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition as infructuous because the petitioner's underlying suit had been decreed with an injunction in his favor, rendering the appeal against the commissioner's dismissal unnecessary unless the respondents appealed the decree.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed as infructuous.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.03.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(PD)No.941 of 2014
& M.P.No.1 of 2014
K.Palanivel .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Marappan
2.Manokaran
3.Kanjana
4.Ravi
5.Kaliappan
6.Pannerselvam .. Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 28.10.2013 made in I.A.No.670 of 2013 in O.S.No.135 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.S.Shriram Narayanan For Respondents : No appearance
2
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 28.10.2013 made in I.A.No.670 of 2013 in O.S.No.135 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed suit O.S.No.135 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram, for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Pending suit, the petitioner has filed the present I.A.No.670 of 2013 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and note down the physical features of the suit property and file a report. The said application was dismissed on 28.10.2013. According to the petitioner, there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondents
with regard to the suit property and hence, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is necessary.
3.When the Civil Revision Petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit
3
O.S.No.135 of 2013 has been decreed and injunction has been granted in favour of the petitioner.
4.In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought liberty to file application for similar relief, if the respondents file appeal against the judgment and decree passed in the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in 2015(1) MWN (Civil) 663 (R.Vasanthi v. M.Soundararajan) . The facts of the said case are different and the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is open to the petitioner to file application for appointment of Commissioner, if there is any necessity. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
23.03.2018
kj
To
The District Munsif, Rasipuram.
4
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
kj
C.R.P.(PD)No.941 of 2014
& M.P.No.1 of 2014
23.03.2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is maintainable when the underlying suit has already been decreed with an in
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.Vasanthi v. M.SoundararajanDistinguished¶21
2015(1) MWN (Civil) 663 (R.Vasanthi v. M.Soundararajan)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Palanivel
Marappan
Manokaran
Kanjana
Ravi
Kaliappan
V.M.Velumani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V.M.Velumani
Parties & counsel
