Allowed

S.Karunanidhi v. Mani @ Jegannathan

Madras HC21 Nov 2023CRP/4078/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the trial court's order dismissing an application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The Court directed the trial judge to appoint a Commissioner within two weeks to survey disputed property and note physical features while hearing objections.

What did the court decide?

The application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner was allowed; the trial judge directed to appoint within two weeks and produce report within four weeks.

S.Karunanidhi Vs Mani @ Jegannathan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRP No. 4078 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :21.11.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI

¶6

Civil Revision Petition No.4078 of 2023

¶7

and CMP.No.24966 of 2023

¶8

S.Karunanidhi ... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mani @ Jegannathan ... Respondent

¶11

Civil Revision Petition filed Under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 31.10.2022 made in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.121 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mettur, Salem District.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. R.Rajadurai for Mr.V.S.Sivanu Pandian

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner has filed this petition to set aside the fair and decretal

¶15

order dated 31.10.2022 made in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.121 of 2019 on

¶16

the file of the Subordinate Court, Mettur, Salem District.

¶17

Heard Mr. R.Rajadurai, learned counsel for Mr.V.S.Sivanu Pandian,

¶18

learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶19

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

¶20

1\4

¶21

CRP No. 4078 of 2023

¶22

Before the trial Court the plaintiff has filed an I.A.No.3 of 2022 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC r/w Section 151 of CPC for the relief of appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the property and to survey the same with the help of Surveyor and VAO and fix the boundaries of the property. As a plaintiff, he filed a suit for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs against the defendant. The defendant also appeared and contested the suit. Before the trial Court the revision petitioner has filed an application to appoint Advocate Commissioner in order to prove the existence of the pathway, which is under dispute. The learned trial Judge dismissed the said application, on hearing the objection raised by the defendant / respondent stating that the plaintiff has not proved whether there is an extent of any pathway through documents and only by adducing the evidence it can be decided. Therefore there is no necessity to appoint the Advocate Commissioner. Challenging the said findings the revision petitioner has preferred this revision.

¶23

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner / plaintiff submitted

¶24

that by filling written statement, the defendant has denied the plaintiff's claim and also contended that there is no common lane in existence in front of the property. Hence, necessity arose for the plaintiff to appoint Advocate

¶25

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

¶26

2\4

¶27

CRP No. 4078 of 2023

¶28

Commissioner to note down the physical feature of the suit property. Considering the main relief of the suit, the Advocate Commissioner's report in respect of the Physical feature of the lane would help the Court to adjudicate the issues between the parties. But the learned trial Judge has erroneously held that, so for as, the existence of pathway has not been proved by the plaintiff through document and rejected the petition and the same can be adduced and produced at the time of trial. Hence he prays that, he is entitled for an appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features, which will minimize the burden of the Court. Without considering the fact, the learned trial Judge erroneously dismissed the application, therefore this Court is inclined to set aside the finding rendered by the learned trial Judge in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.121 of 2019 and the I.A is allowed.

¶29

5 . However, the learned trial Judge is directed to appoint the Advocate Commissioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to produce the report within a period of 4 weeks from the date of appointment and thereafter the learned trial Judge is directed to proceed with the matter as per manner known to law.

¶30

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶31

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

3\4

CRP No. 4078 of 2023

rri

Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

21.11.2023

¶37

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No rri To 1. The Subordinate Judge, Mettur, Salem District. 2.The Section Officer, VR-Section, High Court of Madras.

¶38

Civil Revision Petition No.4078 of 2023 and CMP.No.24966 of 2023

¶39

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

¶40

4\4

S.Karunanidhi v. Mani @ Jegannathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Karunanidhi v. Mani @ Jegannathan

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

M.Dharmalingam Vs K.S.Kaliappan

T. Mohanraj Vs K. Lakshmi

A.Parameswari Vs Dineshkumar

S.Sivaraman Vs Gilles Mariadassou

P.S.Gurusamy Vs Shree Kalaivani Vidyalaya

K.M.Boopathi Vs v.Sampath