Dismissed

Jagavalli v. Sitharthanan

Madras HC20 Feb 2020REV.APPL/119/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras disposed of a review application challenging an earlier order dismissing an application for an Advocate Commissioner. The court found no ground for review, noting the petitioner failed to prove an application for the appointment was filed and affirmed that such appointments are unnecessary in suits for bare injunction absent special circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Review Application No.119 of 2019 stood dismissed. No costs.

Jagavalli Vs Sitharthanan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Review Application No.119 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.02.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

Review Application No.119 of 2019
in
C.R.P.No.424 of 2019
Mrs.Jagavalli ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mr.Sitharthanan
2.Mr.Dinakaran ... Respondents
Prayer: Review Application filed under Section 114 of Civil

¶7

Procedure Code r/w Order 47 Rule 1 praying to allow this review application by setting aside the order in C.R.P.No.424 of 2019 dated 13.03.2019.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijayakumar For Respondent 1 : Mr.K.Elango

¶9

1/6

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

Review Application No.119 of 2019

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The above petition is filed to review the order dated

¶14

13.03.2019 passed by this Court. The ground on which the

¶15

review was argued is that in paragraph no.8 of the said order this Court has wrongly observed as follows:

¶16

“However, on 02.12.2010 a memo was filed returning the warrant and a new Advocate Commissioner was appointed. The 'A' diary extract does not reveal if the new commissioner was appointed pursuant to an application being filed to this effect.”

¶17

The learned counsel would submit that this statement is

¶18

erroneous. However, he has not produced any documents to show that an application was moved for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.

¶19

That apart, once again when the Court peruses the A –

¶20

Diary extract of the date 02.12.2010 it reads as follows:

¶21

2/6

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

Review Application No.119 of 2019

¶24

“Memo filed by Advocate Commissioner and

¶25

recorded. Hence Mr.V.Muthuraman is appointed as

¶26

new Advocate Commissioner and he is directed to inspect the suit property along with the Taluk Surveyor as early ordered. The remuneration is fixed at Rs.2500/- to be paid directly to him. Commissioner

¶27

Report and plan 22.12.2010.”

¶28

Therefore the order is silent on whether an application

¶29

has been moved and the order was passed on such application. The order does not reflect the number of the application moved

¶30

and the advocate Commissioner been appointed.

¶31

The next argument that was advanced by the learned

¶32

counsel appearing for the petitioner was that in paragraph no.12

¶33

of the order this Court has stated as follows:

¶34

“Since the earlier application has already been

¶35

ordered, this Court is not referring to the said affidavit

¶36

except for stating that a reading of affidavit would

¶37

3/6

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶39

Review Application No.119 of 2019

¶40

clearly show that, it is an attempt on the part of the defendants to collect evidence for proving possession.”

¶41

He would submit that this statement is wrong. This Court is

¶42

unable to find how the statement is wrong since this Court has only stated that as the earlier application, namely, I.A.No.1240 of

¶43

2008 in I.A.No.805 of 2008 had been ordered the Court is not

¶44

proceeding to reproduce the statements made therein.

¶45

The Court had arrived at a conclusion that an application in I.A.No.49 of 2018 in I.A.No.373 of 2009 deserves to be dismissed on two grounds:

¶46

i) In a suit for bare injunction there cannot be an

¶47

appointment of Advocate Commissioner to collect the evidence.

¶48

This Court in the said order has also stated that if circumstances

¶49

arose the Court can appoint the Advocate Commissioner even in a suit for bare injunction. However, in the case on hand such

¶50

circumstance has not arisen. There was no necessity to appoint an Advocate Commissioner .

¶51

4/6

¶52

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶53

Review Application No.119 of 2019

¶54

ii) The second point on which the Court had deemed it fit to

¶55

set aside the order was on the ground of laches.

¶56

I do not find any ground to review the earlier order. The
Review Application stands dismissed. No costs.
20.02.2020
kan
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No

¶57

5/6

¶58

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶59

Review Application No.119 of 2019

¶60

P.T. ASHA. J,

¶61

kan

¶62

Review Application No.119 of 2019
in
C.R.P.No.424 of 2019

¶63

20.02.2020

¶64

6/6

¶65

http://www.judis.nic.in

Jagavalli v. Sitharthanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagavalli v. Sitharthanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Om Sakthi Travels Private Vs M/S. Shri Senthilmurugan Auto

M/S. Om Sakthi Travels Private Vs M/S. Shri Senthilmurugan Auto

Mr. John Bosco Vs L & T Finance Limited

Sree Kumar Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs M/S.Kaveri Hitech Spares

Puravankara Limited Vs M/s.Galaxy Properties Private Limited

G.Murugesan Vs a.R.Palaniappan