Rajeswari v. Murugappan
Case brief
What is this about?
Revision against dismissal of application for Advocate Commissioner in suit for injunction. Held admission of possession negates relevance of measurement.
What did the court decide?
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs; connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed.
What the court decided
C.R.P(MD)No.426 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.02.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P(MD)No.426 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.2072 of 2023
Rajeswari ... Petitioner/Petitioner/ Plaintiff Vs. 1.Murugappan 2.Meenakshi Achi ... Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 23-12-2022 made in I.A.No.96/2022 made in O.S.No.293/2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Pudukottai by allowing this Civil Revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Arun
ORDER
The plaintiff in a suit for bare injunction is the revision petitioner.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether appointment of Advocate Commissioner for measurement was legally infirm when possession was admitted.
Whether the present application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC was relevant given the admitted possession.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Rajeswari
- respondent
Murugappan
- respondent
Meenakshi Achi
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court