Dismissed

M.P.Puliyan v. M.P.Nagamalaiyan

Madras HC23 Feb 2023CRP(MD)/462/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court bench dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application for Appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The court held that since electricity receipts and deposit receipts could establish service connection, no physical inspection was needed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed.

M.P.Puliyan Vs M.P.Nagamalaiyan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.462 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.462 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.2197 of 2023

¶7

M.P.Puliyan ... Petitioner/Petitioner/ Defendant Vs.

¶8

M.P.Nagamalaiyan ... Respondent/Respondent/ Plaintiff

¶9

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 27-10-2022 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.154 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam and allow the present civil revision petition.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Lankaram

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/5

¶12

1/5

¶13

C.R.P(MD)No.462 of 2023

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The present revision petition has been filed by the defendant in a

¶16

suit for permanent injunction seeking to injunct the defendant from disturbing the plaintiff from drawing water from S.C.No.792 in Survey No.96/1A.

¶17

Pending suit, the defendant who is one of the co-owners has filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2022 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to establish the fact that the service connection stands in his name and he is drawing water from the said service connection for the joint family properties. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the defendant is attempting to establish his possession over the suit schedule properties. However, it could be seen that the suit is not been filed for a permanent injunction to protect possession. But, it has been filed only seeking an injunction as against the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s right of drawing water from using S.C.No.792.

¶18

2/5

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶20

C.R.P(MD)No.462 of 2023

¶21

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, S.C.No.792

¶22

stands in his name. In order to establish that the service connection stands in his name, he would like to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule properties and to note down the physical features.

¶23

When the S.C.No.792 stands in the name of the revision petitioner/defendant, he can very well produce the documents, electricity receipts and the deposit receipts to establish the fact that the said service connection stands in his name. There is no necessity for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court.

¶24

Hence, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed.

¶25

23.02.2023

¶26

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

¶27

gbg

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5

¶29

3/5

¶30

C.R.P(MD)No.462 of 2023

¶31

¶32

1.The Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

¶33

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

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5

¶35

4/5

¶36

C.R.P(MD)No.462 of 2023

¶37

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.

¶38

gbg

¶39

Order made in C.R.P(MD)No.462 of 2023

¶40

23.02.2023

¶41

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

M.P.Puliyan v. M.P.Nagamalaiyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Puliyan v. M.P.Nagamalaiyan

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

Arumugam Vs Kuruvidurai Pallivasal

S. Mohammed Ravoof Niftar Vs Haji Pitchai Mohideen Rowther Waqf

Sivarampriya Vs M.Y.Jeyalakshmi

R. Vijay, Vs a. Marimuthu

Radhakrishnan Vs R.M.Ramasamy

Subramanian Vs Chandrakumar