Dismissed

Sri Muppili Madasamy Thirukovil v. George

Madras HC21 Apr 2023CRP(MD)/1079/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the Sub Court's refusal to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note encroachments. The High Court held the refusal was not meritorious but directed the Trial Court to dispose of the main suit within nine months to prevent delay.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of O.S.No.78 of 2021 to be completed within 9 months; Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Sri Muppili Madasamy Thirukovil Vs George — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P(MD).No.1079 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD).No.1079 of 2023 and CMP(MD)No.5049 of 2023

¶7

Sri Muppili Madasamy Thirukovil, Represented by its Secretary, T.Murugesan.

¶8

.. Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs. George ... Respondent/Respondent/10^th Defendant

¶9

PRAYER:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.78 of 2021 dated 19.10.2022 on the file of Sub-Court, Sankarankovil and allow this Civil Revision Petition.

¶10

For petitioner : Mr.P.Suresh

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed by Sub-Court, Sankarankovil, in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.78 of 2021 dated 19.10.2022.

¶13

2.The petitioner is the plaintiff before the Sub Court, Sankarankovil in O.S.No.78 of 2021. The suit was filed for declaration and for a permanent

¶14

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

¶15

C.R.P(MD).No.1079 of 2023

¶16

injunction against the defendants and for mandatory injunction against the respondent/10^th defendant to remove the construction put up by him in the 2^nd schedule of suit property.

¶17

3.The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Sub Court, Sankarankovil in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.78 of 2021, dated 19.10.2022.

¶18

4.By the impugned order, the Court has refused to appoint an Advocate Commissioner at the behest of the petitioner/plaintiff.

¶19

5.The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 19.10.2022 in

¶20

I.A.No.2 of 2021 reads as under:-

¶21

'10.vdnt> kDjhuh; jdJ kDtpy;> vjw;fhf Mizah; epakdk; bra;antz;Lk;? vdf; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s bghUz;ikia vjph;kDjhuh; xg;g[f;bfhz;Ls;sikahy;> mJ Fwpj;jhd ahbjhU FHg;gKk; ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F ,y;yhj epiyapy;> Mizah; epakdk; mtrpakw;wJ vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ. nkYk;> c.tp.K.r.> fl;lis 26 tpjp 9y; xU brhj;jpd; mikg;gpd; bghUz;ik Fwpj;J ,U jug;gpdUf;Fk; ,ilna khWgl;l fl;rp ,Uf;Fk; gl;rk;> mj;jifa R{H;epiyapy; khj;jpunk Mizah; epakdk; bra;a tHptif cs;sjhff; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. Mdhy;> ,t;tHf;fpy; jhth brhj;jpd; xU gFjpapy; vjph;kDjhuh; tPL fl;la[s;sij vjph;kDjhuhnu xg;g[f;fbfhz;Ls;s epiyapy;> jhth brhj;jpd; mikg;gpd; bghUz;ik Fwpj;J ,U jug;gpdUf;fpilna ahbjhU khWgl;l fl ; rpa[k; fhzg;glhjjhy;> Mizah; epakdk; mtrpakw;wJ vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ. NkYk;> ,U jug;gpdUf;Fk; ,ilna thjp nfhtpYf;F 50

¶22

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

¶23

C.R.P(MD).No.1079 of 2023

¶24

brz;l; KhtJk; ghj;jpakh? My;yJ 6.5 brz;l; khj;jpunk ghj;jpakh? Vd;w chpik Fwpj;jhd gpur;rid khj;jpunk cs;sjhy;> mj;jifa chpik Fwpj;jhd gpur;rpidf;fhf Mizah; epakdk; bra;a ,ayhJ vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ.'

¶25

6.The specific case of the petitioner is that the 10^th defendant who is the respondent herein has put up a construction which is also admitted in the written statement filed by the 10^th defendant. However, the petitioner fled an application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the encroachments with the help of Surveyor which has been wrongly dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶26

7.The conclusion of the Trial Court indicates that there is admission that the 10^th defendant has put up a construction over the suit schedule property. Therefore, there is no necessity for appointing an Advocate Commissioner. There is no merits in the challenge to the impugned order. The application filed by the petitioner is intended to delay the conclusion of the trial in the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.78 of 2021 for a declaration and mandatory injunction and for recovery of possession. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Therefore,

¶27

this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

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

¶29

C.R.P(MD).No.1079 of 2023

¶30

C.SARAVANAN,J.

¶31

dss

¶32

8.The Trial Court however is directed to dispose O.S.No.78 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 9 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

9.With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

21.04.2023

¶35

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No dss

¶36

¶37

1.The Sub Court, Sankarankovil.

¶38

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

¶39

C.R.P(MD).No.1079 of 2023 and CMP(MD)No.5049 of 2023

¶40

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

Sri Muppili Madasamy Thirukovil v. George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Muppili Madasamy Thirukovil v. George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umarani Vs Alamelu Ammal (DIED),2.S.SEETHALAKSHMI

S. Kalaivani, Vs K. Alagupandi alias Bharathi

Rajini, Vs Sornabai

Inul Fathima Vs Kudpudeen

Sivakami Ammal, Vs Veluchamy (Died), 1. Kameshwari

K.v.Rajkumar Vs P.Lakshmi