Dismissed

K.Sekar(Died) v. Sadhika Begum (Deceased)

Madras HC1 Apr 2024CRP/1324/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner is not appealable before the Additional City Civil Court and thus the revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable. The Court remanded the matter for the report to be completed within two months.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; direction to trial court to obtain report within two months.

K.Sekar(Died) Vs Sadhika Begum (Deceased) — Partition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.No.1324 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.No.1324 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.7416 of 2016

¶7

1.K.Sekar (Died)

¶8

2.S.Nirmal Kumar 3.S.Pravin Kumar 4.S.Sundari 5.S.Vidya Rajeswari .. Petitioners

¶9

(P2 to P5 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased P1 viz., K.Sekar vide Court order dated 21.01.2022 in CMP.No.1050 and 1051 of 2018 in CRP(NPD)No.1324 of 2016 by VMVJ)

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Sadhika Begum (Deceased)

¶12

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

¶13

Page No 1 of 5

¶14

C.R.P.No.1324 of 2016

¶15

1.Nasreen Zehra Syed

¶16

2.Yasmeen Zehra Syed represented by Power Agent, Nasreen Zehra Syed

¶17

3.Asiya Khatoon

¶18

4.Syed Mohammed Aamer

¶19

5.Syed Mohammed Adil .. Respondents

¶20

Prayer : The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.11173 of 2006 in I.A.No.12078 of 2005 in O.S.No.2335 of 1982.

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.H.Surendar

¶22

For RR1 & 2 : M/s.Vasudha Thiagarajan For RR3 to 5 : Disd. vide order dated 10.02.2023

¶23

ORDER

¶24

In an application filed under Section 4 of the Partition Act, the

¶25

learned trial Judge had directed for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and submit a report. There is no order which has been granted by the Court directing the sale of the property by one sharer to the other. It is only such an order which is

¶26

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

¶27

susceptible to an appeal and that too, before the Additional City Civil Page No 2 of 5

¶28

C.R.P.No.1324 of 2016

¶29

Court, Chennai.

¶30

By this present impugned order, by appointing an Advocate Commissioner for inspecting the property and submitting a report, the Court has not decided any issue.

¶31

Incase, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.11173 of 2006, it is always open to him to file an appeal against such a proceeding. As such the present revision is not maintainable. Taking into consideration that the suit has been pending for the past 44 years, the learned XVI Assistant City Civil Judge is directed to get the report from the Advocate Commissioner and pass order in the application as early as possible.

¶32

Incase, the Advocate Commissioner has not submitted a report,

¶33

it is always open to the Court to give a direction to the Advocate Commissioner to submit a report at the earliest. If despite such a direction the Advocate Commissioner does not execute the warrant, then

¶34

the Court will recall its warrant and issue a fresh warrant to another Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of submitting a report.

¶35

Page No 3 of 5

¶36

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

¶37

C.R.P.No.1324 of 2016

¶38

This exercise must be completed within a period of two months

¶39

from today. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶40

01.04.2024

¶41

mkn2 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order :Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶42

¶43

The XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai

¶44

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶45

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

¶46

Page No 4 of 5

¶47

C.R.P.No.1324 of 2016

¶48

mkn2

¶49

C.R.P.No.1324 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.7416 of 2016

¶50

01.04.2024

¶51

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

¶52

Page No 5 of 5

K.Sekar(Died) v. Sadhika Begum (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sekar(Died) v. Sadhika Begum (Deceased)

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

R.Viswanathan Vs a.Muthuraman

Maruthamuthu Vs Mr. Subramanian(deceased)

C.Kalyanasundara Nadar Vs Arulmighu Kayaroganaswamy

Mary Vs Sathiavelu(Died)

Dhandapani@Manoharan(Died) Vs Rasheed(Died)

V.Subramanian Vs Dr.S.Vineeth IAS and 2 others