This Civil Revision Petition challenged an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to measure disputed property extents. The Bench dismissed the petition, holding that the Trial Judge's view on the necessity of the Commissioner was legally sound and effectively aided the Court.
No interference with the order appointing an Advocate Commissioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P. (PD) No.3456 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 02.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P. (PD) No.3456 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.18744 of 2024
J.Kottammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
V.Lakshmanan ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the fair and decretal order dated 05.01.2024 made in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in O.S.No.105 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Perambalur.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is at the instance of the plaintiff. He
presented the suit in O.S.No.105 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Perambalur.
Page No.1 of 6
C.R.P. (PD) No.3456 of 2024
and counter claim. In his counter claim, he has specifically pleaded that the plaintiff has encroached upon the property that belongs to him. Consequently, he sought for recovery of possession of the said extent of 2 feet X 28 ½ feet. Thereafter, he took out an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The said application stood allowed. Hence, the revision.
claim, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove the encroachment by letting oral and documentary evidence and cannot seek for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the property by filing an application. The learned counsel would rely upon the Judgment of this Court in Selvamariammal Vs. Kanagavel (2018 SCC OnLine Mad 7587).
the petitioner.
Page No.2 of 6
C.R.P. (PD) No.3456 of 2024
It is the duty of the respondent herein as the petitioner in the counter claim,
to prove the same. However, there is a dispute on the extent of the properties of the plaintiff and the defendant.
the said Judgment, makes it clear that if the learned Trial Judge felt that, during the course of trial, it is necessary for appointment of an Advocate
Page No.3 of 6
C.R.P. (PD) No.3456 of 2024
Commissioner, it should do so suo motu , without waiting for an application by either party.
02.09.2024
Jer
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral citation : Yes / No
Page No.4 of 6
C.R.P. (PD) No.3456 of 2024
To
The Principal District Munsif, Perambalur.
Page No.5 of 6
C.R.P. (PD) No.3456 of 2024
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J., Jer
C.R.P. (PD) No.3456 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.18744 of 2024
02.09.2024
Page No.6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Judge's order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to measure disputed property extents.
Whether an Advocate Commissioner must be appointed suo motu if the Trial Judge feels it necessary during the cross-examination stage.
Whether the Trial Judge erred in allowing a specific application for an Advocate Commissioner instead of appointing one suo motu.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Selvamariammal Vs. KanagavelReferred¶21
Selvamariammal Vs. Kanagavel (2018 SCC OnLine Mad 7587) · Who else cites this
J. Kottammal
V. Lakshmanan
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
