Panjalai v. S.Jothi
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order rejecting an application for an Advocate Commissioner. The court held that appointing a commissioner to inquire about possession is irrelevant in a suit for declaration of title.
What did the court decide?
Civil Revision Petition dismissed and connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.
What the court decided
C.R.P. (PD) No. 3456 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 3456 of 2019
and
C.M.P. No. 22740 of 2019
1. Panjalai
2. P. Raji Naicker ... Petitioners
-Vs-
S. Jothi ... Respondent
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 15.09.2017 passed in I.A. No. 143 of 2017 in O.S. No. 137 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-Court, Cheyyar.
For Petitioners : Mr. S. Makesh
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A. No. 143 of 2017 in O.S. No. 137 of 2013 by the Sub-Court, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District, by order dated 15.09.2017.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is permitted when the suit concerns title and ownership rather than physical possession of the property.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Panjalai and P. Raji Naicker
- respondent
S. Jothi
Coram
R. Suresh Kumar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court