Allowed

M.Ganesan v. K.Ponnammal

Madras HC10 Jul 2023CRP(MD)/579/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a civil revision petition and remitted the matter to the trial court. The High Court directed the trial court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner as prayed, setting aside the lower court's order that dismissed the application merely because the trial court itself had earlier found the applicants lethargic in a related contempt matter.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; order remitted to trial court to appoint Advocate Commissioner as prayed.

M.Ganesan Vs K.Ponnammal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD).No.579 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.07.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.579 of 2017

¶7

M.Ganesan

¶8

M.Ramakrishnan ... Revision Petitioners/ Petitioners/Plaintiffs

¶9

-vs-

¶10

K.Ponnammal

¶11

K.Velliraja

¶12

K.Thavamurugan 4. K.Velmurugan ... Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants

¶13

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and executable order dated 26.10.2016 passed in I.A.No.544 of 2016 in O.S.No.54 of 2014, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mudhukulathur.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Barathan For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan – for R4 : No appearance – for R1 to R3

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

C.R.P.(MD).No.579 of 2017

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and executable order dated 26.10.2016 passed in I.A.No.544 of 2016 in O.S.No.

¶20

54 of 2014, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mudhukulathur.

¶21

2. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs before the trial Court.

¶22

3. It appears that the petitioners filed the suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.54 of 2014, in which, in I.A.No.239 of 2014 they sought for temporary injunction restraining the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment. In which, the trial Court, vide order, dated 23.03.2015 has granted temporary injunction. However, according to the petitioners, the respondents/defendants have put up construction, thereafter in spite of the order, dated 23.03.2015. Hence, they moved a contempt application on 28.06.2016. While disposing of the said application, the learned trial Judge had arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

C.R.P.(MD).No.579 of 2017

¶26

themselves were very lethargic in protecting their property and that having permitted the defendants herein to complete the construction, it is not fair on their part to seek for the relief against the defendants for contempt of Court.

¶27

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that along with an application for contempt of Court, they also filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C, wherein, the trial Court, in view of the dismissal of contempt application, without assigning any reason, dismissed the Commissioner Application. Therefore, he prays to appoint an Advocate Commissioner by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

¶28

5. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court in respect of the written statement filed by the 4 th defendant, wherein, in paragraph 4 of the written statement, the 4 th defendant has categorically mentioned that there is no objection in appointing the Advocate Commissioner.

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

C.R.P.(MD).No.579 of 2017

¶32

6. In such circumstances, the very dismissal of the Commissioner's Application by the learned trial Judge only on the ground of dismissal of the contempt application cannot be countenanced when they mentioned in the written statement expressing their willingness to have the Commission. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the very order of the learned trial Judge is liable to be set aside.

¶33

7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court and the trial Court is directed to appoint the Advocate Commissioner as prayed for in the petition in I.A.No.544 of 2016.

¶34

8. After this Court passed an order, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that subsequent to the bifurcation of Court, the instant suit which was earlier pending before the District Munsif, Mudhukulathur is now transferred to the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kadaladi and renumbered as O.S.No.27 of 2019. Hence, the

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

C.R.P.(MD).No.579 of 2017

¶38

Registry is directed to mark copy to the present Court also. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

10.07.2023 (2/2)

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

1. The District Munsif Court, Mudhukulathur.

¶43

2. The District Munsif Court, Kadaladi.

¶44

5/6

¶45

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

¶46

C.R.P.(MD).No.579 of 2017

¶47

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶48

ebsi

¶49

C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.579 of 2017

¶50

10.07.2023 (2/2)

¶51

6/6

¶52

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

M.Ganesan v. K.Ponnammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ganesan v. K.Ponnammal

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

K.Ramasamy, Vs Rajeswari

Natarajan Vs Dhanushkodi

Vanarani Vs S. Selvi

M.Ganesan Vs K.Ponnammal

D.Prabhu Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Jeyalakshmi Vs Thirugnasambandam