Ganesan v. Lakshmi
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the additional district munsif's order rejecting the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect a disputed property in a suit challenging a sale deed, directing the trial court to dispose of the matter within six months.
What did the court decide?
The order dated 04.11.2016 rejecting the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was set aside; the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within six months.
What the court decided
C.R.P.No.3416 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.03.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.No.3416 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.15913 of 2017
- Ganesan
- Anandan ... Petitioners
Vs
- Lakshmi
- Paramasivam 3. Krishnamoorthy
- Ramaiyan Servai
- Vellaisamy
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
To determine if the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was unnecessary and if the lower court's order should be set aside.
Whether the revision petition to set aside the order rejecting the application for appointment of a Commissioner is allowable under Article 227.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Ganesan
- petitioner
Anandan
- respondent
Lakshmi
- respondent
Paramasivam
- respondent
Krishnamoorthy
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court