Petitioner sought a direction to expedite an interlocutory application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate suit property after a preliminary decree for demarcation. The court held that once the suit was decreed, the application was unnecessary and the remedy lay in execution, dismissing the revision.
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[NPD].No.5167 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
CRP[NPD].No.5167 of 2024
Subramaniam ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Nayagam 2.Dhanalakshmi 3.Manjula 4.Easwari 5.Eswaran 6.Balasubramaniam 7.Namo Kathiravan Thangamuthu (died) 8.Sundharammal 9.Saraswathy 10.Easwari 11.Lakshmi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to expedite and dispose the pending interlocutory petition in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.775 of 2017 pending on the file of the District Munsif, Sulur.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saran Prasad
C.R.P[NPD].No.5167 of 2024
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to expedite and dispose of the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.775 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif, Sulur.
2.Originally, the petitioner filed a suit seeking for declaration, permanent injunction and to demarcate the boundaries. The suit in respect of declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed as not pressed and suit in respect of demarcation of property was decreed on 25.04.2019. Thereafter, an Interlocutory Application has been filed by the petitioner seeking for an appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit
property and demarcate the southern side east-west boundary line as per preliminary decree dated 25.04.2019. The said application was reserved for pronouncing order on 15.11.2022. However, till date no orders have been pronounced. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials on record.
C.R.P[NPD].No.5167 of 2024
4.At the outset, this Court is of the view that the suit has been
decreed in respect of demarcating the boundaries. At this stage, the very application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner is not necessary when the suit itself is decreed. Now, it is for the petitioner to workout his remedy by way of filing the Execution Petition to enforce the decree.
5.In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
17.12.2024
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No rst To:
The District Munsif, Sulur.
C.R.P[NPD].No.5167 of 2024
N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,
rst
CRP[NPD].No.5167 of 2024
17.12.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite disposal of an interlocutory application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to demarcate boundaries after the suit was decreed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Subramaniam
Nayagam
Dhanalakshmi
Manjula
Easwari
Eswaran
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
