Dismissed

Ramasamy Konar, v. Maikandanathan

Madras HC17 Oct 2019CRP/3076/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a District Munsch's dismissal of an application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The Court held that a Commissioner's report is not conclusive and no re-appointment is necessary as the plaintiff could have filed objections to the existing report.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no costs.

Ramasamy Konar, Vs Maikandanathan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD).No.3076 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.10.2019

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶6

C.R.P.(PD).No.3076 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
Ramasamy Konar ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Maikandanathan
2.Senthilnathan
3.Palani @ Shanmuganathan
4.Ramalingam
5.Srinivasan
6.Rasu
7.Murugesan ...Respondents

¶7

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

¶8

India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 12.07.2010 made in I.A.No.365 of 2009 in O.S.No.103 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suresh for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.T.Sezhian for R1

¶11

R2 to R7 not ready in notice

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 1 / 4

¶13

C.R.P.(PD).No.3076 of 2010

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.365 of 2009 in O.S.No.103 of

¶16

1999 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

¶17

The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.103 of 1999 for declaration,

¶18

permanent injunction and for recovery of possession. The defendants filed the

¶19

written statement and are contesting the suit. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features. The Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner and the Advocate Commissioner has filed his report before the Trial Court. Thereafter, in the year 2009, the plaintiff filed another application in I.A.No.365 of 2009 seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features with the assistance of a Surveyor. Now, for the second time, the plaintiff is seeking for appointment of

¶20

an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features.

¶21

Commissioner is not conclusive. The plaintiff has to establish his case only by

¶22

oral and documentary evidences. It is also settled position that the plaintiff cannot collect evidence through the Advocate Commissioner. When the

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 2 / 4

¶24

C.R.P.(PD).No.3076 of 2010

¶25

Advocate Commissioner has filed his report, there is no necessity for appointing a new Advocate Commissioner or for re-issuing warrant to the same Commissioner to note down the physical features. The plaintiff could have filed his objections to the Commissioner's report, if he is aggrieved over the

¶26

same. Taking into consideration of all these aspects, the Trial Court has rightly

¶27

dismissed the petition.

¶28

I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No

¶29

costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

17.10.2019 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Speaking order / Non Speaking Order ms

¶31

To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 / 4

¶33

C.R.P.(PD).No.3076 of 2010

¶34

M.DURAISWAMY, J.

¶35

¶36

C.R.P.(PD)No.3076 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶37

17.10.2019

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 / 4

Ramasamy Konar, v. Maikandanathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramasamy Konar, v. Maikandanathan

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

Smt S.Vijayalakshmi Vs M/S Shriram Chits Tamilnadu

Mr.K.Natarajan @ Kannan Vs M/S.Tamil Nadu State

M. Boomathi Vs S. Muthusamy

S.Viswanathan Vs Ganesan

P. Thiyagarajan S/O Perumal Vs S. Selvaraj

N.Kailasapathy Vs the Tamil Nadu Housing Board