Dismissed

Hariprasad v. Muniraj

Madras HC18 Aug 2023CRP/2837/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Docket Order allowing appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure properties in a civil suit. The High Court dismissed the petition, rejecting the claim that the appointment was unnecessary or would cause delay, and confined the Commissioner's mandate to the same.

What did the court decide?

The order confirming the appointment of Apprentice Commissioner was allowed and the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed.

Hariprasad Vs Muniraj — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P. No. 2837 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :03.08.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

C.R.P. No. 2837 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.17598 of 2023

¶7

Hariprasad ...Petitioner

¶8

.Vs.

¶9

1. Muniraj

¶10

Suresh ...Respondents Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Docket Order dated 04.12.2021 made in I.A.No.138 of 2023 in O.S.No.258 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Pappireddipatty, by allowing this Civil Revision petition and pass orders

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. T. Dhanasekaran

¶12

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

¶13

1/5

¶14

C.R.P. No. 2837 of 2023

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This petition is filed to set aside the Docket Order dated 04.12.2021 made in I.A.No.138 of 2023 in O.S.No.258 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Pappireddipatty,

¶17

The case of the petitioner is that he has filed a suit in O.S.No.159 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Harur seeking (a) for a declaration declaring the suit schedule properties belonging to the petitioner (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men and servants, agents or any persons claiming under them from interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and (c) for cost of the suit and (d) also grant plaintiff such further and other reliefs and when the same is pending the Respondents/Defendants have filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.156 of 2019 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit properties and the same was allowed vide order dated 04.12.2021. Thereafter, due to bifurcation of territorial jurisdiction the I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.156 of 2019 was transferred to the file of the Subordinate Judge Court at Papireddypatti https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶18

C.R.P. No. 2837 of 2023

¶19

and the same was re-numbered as I.A.No.138 of 2023 in O.S.No.258 of

¶20

However, aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has come up with this present petition.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶22

Court below has not granted sufficient time to proceed the case. He further submitted that appointment of Advocate Commissioner is not necessary, as the same will delay the suit proceedings. He further submitted that the Court below without proper appreciation of facts has allowed the I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.156 of 2019. Hence prays to allow this petition.

¶23

On a perusal of records it is seen that the learned Judge has

¶24

passed the impugned order with a direction to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the measurements of the subject property and no adverse orders has been passed against the petitioners. When this being the case, the petitioner has filed this present petition to set aside the impugned order, which is not legally justifiable. The Appointment of Advocate Commissioner will no way affect the proceedings of the case as the report of Advocate Commissioner will enable to arrive a correct https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5

¶25

C.R.P. No. 2837 of 2023

¶26

decision. Therefore, there is no necessity to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below. However, the Advocate Commissioner is directed to measure the subject property and file a report before the Court below.

¶27

In view of the above, the order dated 04.12.2021 made in

¶28

I.A.No.138 of 2023 in O.S.No.258 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Pappireddipattyi is confirmed. Accordingly this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

18.08.2023

¶30

smn Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

¶31

To. The Subordinate Judge, Pappireddipatty

¶32

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

¶33

4/5

¶34

C.R.P. No. 2837 of 2023

¶35

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. Smn

¶36

C.R.P. No. 2837 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.17598 of 2023

¶37

18.08.2023

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/5

Hariprasad v. Muniraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariprasad v. Muniraj

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

S. Durairajan Vs the Secretary / Special Officer

Vallipurathampalayam Village Sengunthar Community Welfare Sangam Vs S. Sampantham

Vatchala Vs Devaki

P. Harak Chand Bhandari Vs Praful. H. Bhandari

K.C.Sundaravadivelu Vs C.Thulasimani

Arjun.C Vs Divya. v