Dismissed

Karuppathal v. Ganesan

Madras HC22 Aug 2023CRP(MD)/1673/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by the plaintiff challenging the dismissal of her application for appointment of a Commissioner. The court held the application was filed belatedly and unnecessary as the dispute over survey numbers was not contested in the written statement.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; trial court directed to dispose of suit expeditiously.

Karuppathal Vs Ganesan — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRP(MD).No.1673 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.08.203

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUM A R A P P A N

¶6

CRP(PD)(MD).No. 1673 of 2019 and CMP(MD).No.8650 of 2019

Karuppathal

Petitioner

Vs.

1.Ganesan 2.Lakshmanan 3.Ramasamy 4.Pandian 5.Chandra 6.The Tahsildar, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District. 7.The District Collector, Dindigul District. (respondents 5 to 7 are set ex-parte before the lower court) Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.No.01 of 2019 in O.S.No.19 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif

¶12

1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

CRP(MD).No.1673 of 2019

¶14

Court, Dindigul, dated 15.07.2019.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.D. Venkatesh

¶16

For Respondents 1 to 4: Mr.F. X. Eugine

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 15.07.2019 made in I.A.No.01 of 2019 in O.S.No.19 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul,

¶19

The revision petitioner herein is the petitioner / plaintiff

¶20

before the trial Court. The respondents herein are the respondents / defendants before the Court below.

¶21

According to the petitioner, she has filed a suit for relief of declaration and injunction and also for injunction restraining the revenue Department not to change the patta. In which, the petitioner has also moved an application for an appointment of Commissioner, which was dismissed by the Court below. Hence, aggrieved with that order, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶22

2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

CRP(MD).No.1673 of 2019

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner's suit property situated in old SF.No.169 / 2. Now, for that old SF No.169/2, corresponding new SF No. 169/4 was assigned. Therefore, in order to to prove such change they need an appointment of Commissioner.

¶25

However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that Old S.No.169/2 has not been changed as S.No.169/4 and that said S.No.169/2 was assigned with New S.Nos.169/2A, 2A, 169/2A, 2B, 169/2B, 169/2C1, 169/2C2. Therefore, he has strongly objected the arguments made by the petitioner in respect of the New S.No. 169/4. It is also a submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner's application for appointment of Commissioner has been filed after a long delay that too during the cross examination of the defendants side evidence.

¶26

I have given my anxious consideration of the submissions of

¶27

the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶28

3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

CRP(MD).No.1673 of 2019

¶30

From the submissions of either side, the very filing of an application has been necessitated to the petitioner only to prove the assigning of new S.No.169/4 to the old S.No.169/2. According to the petitioner, such a new assignment was disputed by the respondents. From the perusal of the plaint averments, though the petitioner has stated in respect of the old Survey Number and its new corresponding Survey Number, such factum was not disputed by the respondents in the written statement which was filed as early as during the year 2014. Further, the petitioner did not file any application for an appointment of Commissioner in this regard.

¶31

On perusal of commission application, in paragraph No.6 of the affidavit it has been specifically mentioned that, an application for appointment of commissioner necessitated to prove the assignment of new S.Nos. 169/2A, 2A, 169/2A2B, 169/2B, 169/2C1, 169/2C2 for the old S.No.169/2. Though the petitioner has stated such an averment in the petition they moved an application belatedly during 2019 after five years from the date of filing of the Written statement. Therefore, as rightly observed by the Court below when the issue is only respect of S.No.169/4 there is no necessity for the petitioner to prove the assignment of new

¶32

4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

CRP(MD).No.1673 of 2019

¶34

Survey Numbers for S.No.169/2. Furthermore, even for the sake of arguments if we concludes that the same needs to be proved, since the revenue authorities being a party to the suit, the petitioner would have very well summon the documents from the respective officials and could establish the same. Therefore, considering the above aspect and also considering the fact that the said application is filed belatedly that too at the stage of cross examination of the defendants side evidence, this Court could not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.

¶35

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Since the suit is of the year 2014, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶36

22.08. 2023

¶37

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No trp

¶38

5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

CRP(MD).No.1673 of 2019

¶40

¶41

The the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul.

¶42

6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

CRP(MD).No.1673 of 2019

¶44

C.KUM A R A P P A N , J.,

¶45

trp

¶46

CRP(PD)(MD).No. 1673 of 2019 and CMP(MD).No.8650 of 2019

¶47

22.08.2023

¶48

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Karuppathal v. Ganesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuppathal v. Ganesan

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

R.Durairaj Vs v.Subburaman (Died)

S.Vargheese,S/O.Singarayan Vs M.Subromanian, W/O.Velayudhan

D.Justin Robin, Vs F.Wilfred

R. Naina Mohamed Vs Ahamed Jalal

Muthupandi, Vs 1. Azhagar (Died),2. Pandiyammal

Arumugam, Vs Badhurinnisha Bee