The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition which sought to set aside an order refusing to scrap a delayed Advocate Commissioner's report. The court held that credibility of the report is for the trial court to examine during appeals, not at the revision stage.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition 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.
CRP(NPD)No.2406 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 22.12.2020 PRONOUNCED ON : 21.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
CRP(NPD)No.2406 of 2016
CMP.No.12414 of 2016
(Through Video Conferencing)
Elamvazhudi Petitioner
Vs
Sakunthala Respondent
Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 28.03.2016 passed in IA.No.22 of 2016 in IA.No.118 of 2009 in AS.No.22 of 2008 by the Additional Sub Court, Villupuram.
For Petitioner : Ms.R.Meenal For Respondent : Mr.T.K.Saravanan
ORDER
CRP(NPD)No.2406 of 2016
suit. The suit was filed for declaration of title, for possession and for future mesne profits. Since the suit was dismissed, the Defendant has filed the appeal, in which, the Plaintiff has filed IA.No.118 of 2009, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property. By order dated, 07.10.2009, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the suit property was inspected on 11.01.2014 and the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner were filed on 23.02.2016. The present application has been filed by the Defendant to reopen IA.No.118 of 2009 to consider his objection to the report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner and to scrap the said report and plan. In and by the impugned order, the said application was dismissed. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
893 (Veppanathar Vs. Kaliappan).
CRP(NPD)No.2406 of 2016
CRP(MD)No.514 of 2020.
CRP(NPD)No.2406 of 2016
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
Srcm
Commissioner cannot be entertained in this case and accordingly, the court
below is right in passing impugned order, which warrants no interference by
this Court.
9. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.
21.01.2021
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking
Srcm
To
1. The Additional Sub Court, Villupuram.
Pre-Delivery Order in
CRP(NPD)No.2406 of 2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Civil Revision Petition can be entertained to scrap an Advocate Commissioner's report filed after a delay of two years.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the additional sub court's order dismissing the application to reopen the file.
Elamvazhudi
Sakunthala
A.A.Nakkiran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
