Dismissed

Veeraiah v. Eswari

Madras HC15 Nov 2024CRP(MD)/159/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendants in an injunction suit sought to recall and examine the Advocate Commissioner and Surveyor after a prior Commissioner's report was set aside. The trial court refused. The High Court found no merit in the challenge, dismissed the revision, and directed completion of the trial within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

None granted; revision dismissed, no costs, misc petition closed, trial directed to conclude within eight weeks.

Veeraiah Vs Eswari — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.11.2024

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶4

C.R.P.(MD)(PD)No.159 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD)No.866 of 2020

¶5

1.Veeraiah 2.Selvaraj 3.Muthusamy 4.Chellapandi 5.Ranjeedham 6.Chellapandiyammal 7.Mathiazhagan ... Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

1.Eswari 2.The Surveyor, Theni Taluk, Theni District. 3.The Tahsildar, Theni Taluk, Theni District. 4.The Sub Registrar, Theni, Theni District. 5.The District Collector, Theni District. ...Respondents ________________ Page 1 of 7_

¶8

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

¶9

PRAYER

¶10

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order and decree dated 15.11.2019 made in I.A.No.8 of 2019 in O.S.No.116 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Theni, Theni District.

¶11

For Petitioners	:Mr.S.Balaji
For R1	:Mr.R.Senthil Kumar
For R2 to R5	:Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
	Additional Government Pleader *****

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 15.11.2019 made in I.A.No.8 of 2019 in O.S.No.116 of 2016 by the learned District Munsif, Theni.

¶14

2.The petitioners are the defendants in the suit. The suit was filed for permanent injunction and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants 1 to 7/the Revision Petitioners have filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.8 of 2019 under Order XVI Rule 3 r/w Section 151 CPC calling for the records pertaining to the documents related to the Advocate Commissioner and the Surveyor and to examine them as further witnesses.

¶15

Page 2 of 7

¶16

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

¶17

3.The learned trial Judge had dismissed the said petition and passed the

¶18

following order:

¶19

“ePjpkd;w MizaUf;F cj;juT gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;L mjdbg;gilapNyNa ePjpkd;w MizaUk; mtuJ mwpf;ifia jhf;fy; nra;Js;shu;. me;j ePjpkd;w Mizaiu epakpf;f Nfhup jhf;fy; nra;j kDtpy; ,e;j kDjhuu;fs; M[uhfp ,Ue;jNghjpYk; mtu;fsJ nrhj;Jf;fisAk; Nru;j;J mstPL nra;aNtz;Lnkd;Wk;> mt;thW mse;jhy;jhd; cz;ikepiy njupatFnkd;Wk;> ve;jtpj Nfhupf;ifAk; itf;fhky; ];jyj;jpy; itj;J ePjpkd;w Mizauplk; Kiwapl;ljhfTk;> mjdbg;gilapy; mtu; nray;glhjjhy; jw;NghJ ,e;j kDit jhf;fy; nra;Js;sjhfTk; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sjpy; ve;jtpj epahaKk; ,y;iy vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; RUJfpwJ NkYk; ,e;j kDtpy; Fwpg;gpl;L ve;jtpjkhd cz;ikia ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F vLj;Jiuf;fNtz;b mtu;fis rhl;rpfshf tprhuiz nra;aNtz;Lk; vd nrhy;yg;gltpy;iy. vdNt ,e;j tof;fpy; ePjpkd;w MizaiuAk;> epy msitaiuAk; rhl;rpahf tprhuiz nra;tjhy; ve;j xU Gjpa rhl;rpa rq;fjpfSk; tUtjw;F tha;g;G ,y;iy vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJtjhYk; Vw;fdNt ePjpkd;w Mizau; jdJ mwpf;ifia epy msitaupd; mwpf;ifNahL Nru;j;J jhf;fy; nra;Js;shu; vd;Wk;. mJNt NghJkhdjhf ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUjp kD gpur;ridf;F jPu;T fhzg;gLfpwJ.

¶20

4.Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶21

5.The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that originally in the

¶22

________________ Page 3 of 7_

¶23

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

¶24

above suit, an

¶25

above suit, an ex parte order was passed in an application filed to appoint Advocate Commissioner. Pursuant to the appointment of Advocate Commissioner, a report was filed by him. The said report was challenged by the Revision Petitioners and the same was set aside by this Court in C.R.P.(MD)No. 1584 of 2017, dated 28.06.2018. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners further contended that the present Advocate Commissioner in this suit in I.A.No.8 of 2019 is none other than the Advocate Commissioner, who was originally appointed at the time of filing the suit and whose report has been set aside by this Court in C.R.P.(MD)No.1584 of 2017.

¶26

6.Though the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners has not questioned the credibility of the Advocate Commissioner, but takes an exception with regard to the finding rendered by this Court in the above Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD)No.1584 of 2017, which as follows:

¶27

“6.In the result,

¶28

(a).....

¶29

(b)The learned District Munsif, Theni, Theni District, is directed to re-issue the warrant to the same Advocate Commissioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Advocate Commissioner is directed to inspect the suit property and file a report by giving proper notice with evidence to both parties and file a report within a period of one month, thereafter.

¶30

________________ Page 4 of 7_

¶31

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

¶32

.......”

¶33

8.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the

¶34

view that the contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners is without any force and the order passed by the trial Court needs no interference and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Considering the fact that the suit is pending for a quite long time from the year 2016, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial on a day-today-basis within a period of eight weeks from the

¶35

date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

15.11.2024

¶37

Internet :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No Speaking Order :Yes/No

¶38

________________ Page 5 of 7_

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

1.The District Munsif, Theni, Theni District. 2.The Surveyor, Theni Taluk, Theni District.

¶42

3.The Tahsildar, Theni Taluk, Theni District.

¶43

4.The Sub Registrar, Theni, Theni District.

¶44

5.The District Collector, Theni District.

¶45

________________ Page 6 of 7_

¶46

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

¶47

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

¶48

cmr

¶49

Order made in C.R.P.(MD)(PD)No.159 of 2020

¶50

15.11.2024

¶51

________________ Page 7 of 7_

¶52

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

Veeraiah v. Eswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeraiah v. Eswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Arputham Vs Mary Jeya

N. Amutha Vs Jason Kennedy

K.Mathivanan Vs Veerachamy

Rabiya Bibi(Died) Vs Abi

C.Badrinarayanan Vs M/S.Sel Jegat Printers (P) Ltd.

Joseph Vs Nagarajan