The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order rejecting the defendant's application for appointment of a Commissioner in a bare injunction suit. The Court held that such appointment at the defendant's instance is impermissible.
The civil revision petition and connected miscellaneous petition are dismissed; no costs.
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.
C.R.P(PD)No. 3625 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 20232 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.12.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P(PD)No. 3625 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No. 20232 of 2018
M.Arthanarisami ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Ponnusamy
2.S.Rajan ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, against the order and decreetal order dated 06.09.2018 made in
I.A.No. 415 of 2017 in O.S.No. 215 of 2013 on the file of the Principal
District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy For Respondents : Mr.S.Sundaravadhanan
O R D E R
The defendant in O.S.No. 215 of 2013 has come up on revision challenging the order rejecting his application for appointment of Commissioner for the purpose of noting down the physical features of the property.
1/4
C.R.P(PD)No. 3625 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 20232 of 2018
where the defendant seeks to procure evidence to prove possession. This civil revision petition therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
09.12.2020
kkn Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking.
2/4
C.R.P(PD)No. 3625 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 20232 of 2018
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
KKN
To:
The Principal District Munsif Court,
Tiruchengode.
C.R.P(PD)No. 3625 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No. 20232 of 2018
3/4
09.12.2020
C.R.P(PD)No. 3625 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 20232 of 2018
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Commissioner can be appointed at the instance of the defendant in a suit for bare injunction to note down physical features of the property to prove possession.
Whether the Trial Court was correct in rejecting the defendant's application for appointment of a Commissioner.
M.Arthanarisami
Ponnusamy
S.Rajan
R. Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
