This Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed against the order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain physical features of a property regarding easementary rights and ingress/egress. The High Court found no error in the trial court's order.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
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.3851 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.02.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.R.P.(PD) No.3851 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
1.Capt.G.A.Mustafa
2.Abdul Ali Mohamed
3.Mrs.Iqbal Vali Moideen ...Petitioners
..Vs..
1.P.Subramanian
2.K.Arumugam
3.A.Ravikumar
4.A.Devaraj
5.G.Saravanan
6.E.Ravindran
7.T.D.Muthuraj ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the judgment and decree passed in I.A.No.3832 of 2012 in O.S.No.1448 of 2012 by the learned VIII Judge, Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondents : No appearance
C.R.P.(PD) No.3851 of 2013
O R D E R
The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the respondents are absent.
for the relief of declaration declaring the sale deeds executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of defendants 4 to 6 as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining them from putting up any construction. Written statement was filed and the same was registered.
appointment of Advocate Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C alleging that the ingress and egress of the property is only through his land and hence, physical features and the location of the property is necessary. The plaintiffs had claimed the easementary right and hence, he filed the I.A 3832 of 2012. The said I.A was allowed on the ground
that the plaintiffs are claiming easementary rights and ingress and egress through that lane and the defendants are contending that the plaintiffs are having other side. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
C.R.P.(PD) No.3851 of 2013
case, it is absolutely necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure the property and to note down the physical features for the better appreciation of the case.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
18.02.2020
nvi
Index:Yes/No Speaking Order:Yes/No
To
The VIII Judge, Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
3/4
C.R.P.(PD) No.3851 of 2013
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,
nvi
C.R.P.(PD) No.3851 of 2013 and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
18.02.2020
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order granting appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure property features for easementary rights warrants interference in Civil Revision.
Whether the trial Court correctly observed that physical features of the property are necessary for the better appreciation of the suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Capt. G.A. Mustafa
Abdul Ali Mohamed
Mrs. Iqbal Vali Moideen
P. Subramanian
K. Arumugam
A. Ravikumar
RMT. Teekaa Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
