Madras High Court, Madurai Bench dismissed a civil revision petition filed under Article 227. The High Court found no error in the trial court dismissing an application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect property, noting the case relies on documentary proof.
Civil revision petition dismissed with 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.
CRP(MD)No.2488 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 14.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRP(MD)No.2488 of 2022 and CMP(MD)No.12194 of 2022
1.A.Perumal
2.P.Kannan ... Petitioners
Vs
Tirunelveli Hosuing Unit, Through its Executive Engineer and Executive Officer, Tirunelveli -11
... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 04.07.2022 passed in IA.No.4 of 2019 in OS.No.60 of 2019 on the file of the 2nd Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli and allow the civil revision petition with cost.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Mayil Vahanarajendran For Respondent : Mr.A.Kannan
1/5
CRP(MD)No.2488 of 2022
ORDER
This civil revision petition is filed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 04.07.2022 passed in IA.No.4 of 2019 in OS.No.60 of 2019 by the learned 2nd Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli.
2.The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit in OS.No.60 of 2019. The petitioners have also filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and to file the report.
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the suit was filed for injunction, the trial Court has granted an order of interim injunction in his favour. After the grant of interim injunction by the trial Court,
the defendant has damaged the property and therefore in order to assess damage, the petitioner has filed an application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and the trial Court without considering the same dismissed the application.
2/5
CRP(MD)No.2488 of 2022
4.The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner is an encroacher and the suit is only for mandatory injunction.
5.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record.
6.The main relief sought in the suit is only a mandatory injunction. The interim injunction was also granted. The petitioners have filed an application for appointment of advocate commissioner. The trial Court has given finding that the petitioners by seeking appointment of advocate commissioner cannot collect evidence in their support and they have to prove their case through documents. Moreover the petitioners have not stated the necessity for appointment of advocate commissioner to decide the case. This Court does not find any error in the orders of the trial Court.
3/5
CRP(MD)No.2488 of 2022
7.The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.
14.12.2022
dsk
To II -Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli.
4/5
CRP(MD)No.2488 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk
CRP(MD)No.2488 of 2022
14.12.2022
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petitioners establish any error in the trial court's dismissal of an application for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
A. Perumal
P. Kannan
Tirunelveli Housing Unit, Through its Executive Engineer and Executive Officer
B. Pugalendhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
