Dismissed

Maheswari v. Chinnadurai @ Vaithialingam

Madras HC14 Aug 2023CRP(MD)/1076/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition challenging an order dismissing an application for an Advocate Commissioner to inspect fencing, the single judge held there was no perversity since the suit was at the part heard stage. The court dismissed the petition but directed the lower court to dispose of the suit within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; suit directed to be disposed within four months.

Maheswari Vs Chinnadurai @ Vaithialingam — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.1076 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.1076 of 2019 and C.M.P(MD)No.5841 of 2019

¶7

1.Maheswari

¶8

2.Muthukumar

¶9

3.Senthil Vel

¶10

4.Sasi kala

¶11

5.Kavitha ... Petitioners /Petitioners /Plaintiffs

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.Chinnadurai @ Vaithialingam

¶14

2.Pazhaniyappan

¶15

3.Sargunan @ Vaithialingam

¶16

4.Navaneetham

¶17

5.Ayyathurai

¶18

6.Senthil ... Respondents /Respondents /Defendants

¶19

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 20.12.2018, in I.A.No.1227 of 2018, in O.S.No.49 of 2018, on the file of the District Munsif, Aranthangi.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Anandkumar For Respondents : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar for R1 : No appearance for R2 to R6

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶22

C.R.P(MD)No.1076 of 2019

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

¶25

counsel for the first respondent are present.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

¶27

they filed a suit for permanent injunction, and that the respondent is attempting to put up fencing. Therefore, they moved the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner.

¶28

However, the above said contention was stoutly objected

¶29

by the learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶30

But, the Court below, in his impugned order has stated

¶31

that, in the Commission application, the petitioners did not state any reason as to the necessity for appointment of Commissioner and has ultimately dismissed the application.

¶32

I have given my anxious consideration to the either side

¶33

submissions.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶35

C.R.P(MD)No.1076 of 2019

¶36

From the submission of the learned counsel for the

¶37

petitioners they wanted the appointment of Commissioner only to find out the encroachment which alledgely made by the respondent / defendant. But, while perusing the order, this Court could not find perversity in the order of the Court below.

¶38

At this juncture, it is also pertinent to mention here that the very suit is at the part heard stage, therefore, this Court could not find any ground to interfere with the well considered order of the Court below. Hence, the instant Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed .

¶39

However, considering the fact that the suit is in the part heard stage, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶40

14.08.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Ls

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶42

C.R.P(MD)No.1076 of 2019

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

1.The District Munsif, Aranthangi.

¶47

2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶48

C.R.P(MD)No.1076 of 2019

¶49

14.08.2023

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

Maheswari v. Chinnadurai @ Vaithialingam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheswari v. Chinnadurai @ Vaithialingam

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

L.Jaisankar Vs S.Raja

Raja, Vs Santhanakrishnan

R.Mathiyalagan Vs Ponnambalam

Elanchiyam, Vs Chandra

A.Karpagam, Vs P.Muthulakshmi

Sangilimadathi, Vs Solomon Rajan