Dismissed

Mrs. Asha, v. Mrs. L. Mahalakshmi

Madras HC6 Dec 2022CRP/2446/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision sought to set aside an order dismissing a petition for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to determine the location of a tank and water connection during a suite. The High Court held that the Commissioner cannot be appointed for mere evidence collection in a suit for injunction and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner stands dismissed; consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Mrs. Asha, Vs Mrs. L. Mahalakshmi — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.R.P.No. 2446 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

C.R.P.No. 2446 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.12670 of 2016

Asha

.... Petitioner

L.Mahalakshmi 2. G.Jayakumar .... Respondents

¶11

Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to call for the records and set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 16.03.2016 made in I.A.No.16114 of 2015 in O.S.No.244 of 2013 passed by the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and allow the above Revision Petition.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Velusamy For R1 : Mr.B.Sudarshan for Mr.M.Ganesan For R2 : Notice served

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the fair

¶15

and decreetal order dated 16.03.2016 made in I.A.No.16114 of 2015 in O.S.No.244 of 2013 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/4

¶18

C.R.P.No. 2446 of 2016

¶19

Court, Chennai, thereby dismissing the petition for seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner.

¶20

The first respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.244 of 2013 for

¶21

permanent injunction as against the petitioner and the second respondent herein. Pending suit, the petitioner also filed counter claim seeking mandatory injunction to remove the Sintex Tank put up by the first respondent in his portion. Pending counter claim, the petitioner also filed a petition to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to find out the location of the Sintex Tank put up by the first respondent and also find out the separate water connection from the sump to the Sintex Tank put up by the first respondent. After cross examination of P.W.1, though several opportunities were given to the petitioner to cross examine P.W.1, the petitioner failed to cross examine him. Thereafter, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 29.10.2015. Thereafter the petitioner come forward with the petition to find out the location of the Sintex Tank put up by the first respondent and also find out the separate water connection

¶22

from the sump to the Sintex Tank put up by the first respondent. The prayer sought for in this petition is nothing but to collect the evidence for

¶23

the purpose of strengthening the case of the counter claim. Therefore, in 2/4

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

C.R.P.No. 2446 of 2016

¶26

the suit for injunction and also mandatory injunction, the Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for collecting evidence, the Court below has rightly dismissed the petition.

¶27

In view of the above, this Court finds no merits in this petition. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶28

06.12.2022

¶29

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No

¶30

Lpp

¶31

¶32

The IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai

¶33

The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madras High Court, Madras.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

3/4

¶36

C.R.P.No. 2446 of 2016

¶37

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶38

Lpp

¶39

C.R.P.No. 2446 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.12670 of 2016

¶40

06.12.2022

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

4/4

Mrs. Asha, v. Mrs. L. Mahalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Asha, v. Mrs. L. Mahalakshmi

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

Saravanavelu Vs Pazhaniyandi(Died)

St.Georges Cathedral Trust Vs Rev.S.Immanuel Devakadatcham

Vasanthakumari Anbalagan Vs Tamil Nadu Industrial

V. Rajendran Vs Mrs. Gudaru Prasanthi

P. Ravikanth Vs T. Shannapan (Since Deceased)

K.V. Mohankumar Vs v. Sundaramoorthy