Dismissed

R.Manivannan v. M.Sundaram

Madras HC13 Dec 2019CRP/3812/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision, the petitioner sought to set aside the dismissal of an application to summon a Village Administrative Officer as a witness. The High Court dismissed the plea, holding that since the Advocate Commissioner filed no report due to lack of property subdivision, summoning the officer served no purpose.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition and the connected C.M.P. were dismissed; no costs awarded to either party.

R.Manivannan Vs M.Sundaram — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13..12..2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3812 OF 2019

¶6

AND C.M.P.NO.25041 OF 2019

¶7

R.Manivannan ... Petitioner -Versus-

¶8

M.Sundaram ... Respondent

¶9

Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 26.07.2019 made in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.14 of 2011 by the learned District Munsif, Mettur, Salem District.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mani

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Mettur, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order XVI, Rule 1 and Section 151 of CPC for issuance of summons to the then Village Administrative Officer - Mr.S.Pandian for his examination in court as witness on the side of the plaintiff.

¶13

The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.14 of 2011 for a decree for declaration declaring his right to have access to the cart tract passing on the suit property and also for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his peaceful usage of the cart tract. Earlier, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property with the help of a qualified surveyor and also to find out the existence of the cart tract. That application was allowed. Pursuant to the same, when the Advocate Commissioner visited the suit property along with the qualified surveyor he could not measure the suit property as the same was not sub divided and therefore, he returned the warrant of commission without any report. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the application which is the subject matter in the revision seeking to issue summons to the then Village Administrative Officer who had assisted the Advocate Commissioner while he inspected the suit property pursuant tot he warrant of commission issued earlier for the purpose of examining him as

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

witness on his side. The court below had dismissed the application on the ground that the Advocate Commissioner did not even file any report and petitioner also did not press the application. The court below has held that when the Advocate Commissioner himself not filed any report, there would not be any necessity to examine the then Village Administrative Officer who stated to have assisted the Advocate Commissioner at the time of inspection of the suit property. Challenging the above said order, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this court.

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records carefully.

¶17

The application which is the subject matter of the revision petition was filed seeking to summon the then Village Administrative Officer who had accompanied the Advocate Commissioner at the time of inspection of the suit property. Admittedly, the Advocate Commissioner could not execute the warrant of commission as the suit property was not sub divided by the revenue authorities and as such the petitioner himself did not press the application and the same was accordingly dismissed. When the Advocate Commissioner himself not filed any report, there would not be any purpose served, if summons is issued to the then Village Administrative Officer for his examination. The court below on considering the all these factual aspects has rightly dismissed the application by way of impugned order which does not require any interference at the hands of this court. Thus, the civil revision petition fails and the same is liable only to be dismissed.

¶18

In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO-MDU)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

kmk To

¶23

1.The District Munsif, Mettur, Salem District.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.P.Mani, Advocate, S.R.No.103890

¶25

Civil Revision Petition No.3812 of 2019

¶26

BP(CO) CS/13/07/2020

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Manivannan v. M.Sundaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Manivannan v. M.Sundaram

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

K.B.Dayavathiammal Vs Marg Limited

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Vs Bakkiyaraj

Shanthi Vs S.Kamalam

V. Muniappan Vs Muniammal Alias Muthulakshmi

P.Ramasamy Vs P.Palanisamy

V.Ashokkumar, Vs Kowsalya