Disposed

K. Vijayalakshmi, v. R. Manoharan

Madras HC16 Dec 2024CRP(MD)/2562/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision against trial court's order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to measure suit property. As the Commissioner had already filed report and plan, nothing survived for adjudication; petitioners were granted liberty to file objections before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty given to file objections to Commissioner's report and plan before the Trial Court; no costs.

K. Vijayalakshmi, Vs R. Manoharan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.2562 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.2562 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD)No.12584 of 2022

¶7

1.K.Vijayalakshmi

¶8

2.K.Krishnamoorthy 3.P.Arumugam ... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.R.Manoharan

¶11

2.R.Selvam ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 21.09.2022 made in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.139 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Duraiyur.

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

C.R.P(MD)No.2562 of 2022

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram for Mr.K.Muthumalai For Respondents : Mr.K.Navaneetha Raja

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.139 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Duraiyur.

¶19

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants in the above suit.

¶20

The respondents as plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.139 of 2022 for declaration and for injunction. Pending suit, the respondents / plaintiffs took out an application in I.A.No.3 of 2022 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to visit and measure the suit property. The said petition was allowed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by this, the present revision is preferred.

¶21

2/5

¶22

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

¶23

C.R.P(MD)No.2562 of 2022

¶24

3. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, before numbering this revision petition, Advocate Commissioner has visited the suit property and filed his report and plan. Hence, prays for a liberty to file his objections to the report and the plan of the Advocate Commissioner.

¶25

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶26

5. Since the Advocate Commissioner has filed his report and plan before the disposal of this revision petition, nothing survives in this revision application for adjudication. However, liberty is given to the revision petitioners to file their objection before the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶27

3/5

¶28

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

¶29

C.R.P(MD)No.2562 of 2022

¶30

6. With the above mentioned direction, this Civil Revision Petition

¶31

stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.

¶32

16.12.2024

¶33

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To

¶34

The District Munsif Court, Duraiyur.

¶35

4/5

¶36

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

¶37

C.R.P(MD)No.2562 of 2022

¶38

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

¶39

BTR

¶40

Order made in C.R.P(MD)No.2562 of 2022

¶41

16.12.2024

¶42

5/5

¶43

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

K. Vijayalakshmi, v. R. Manoharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Vijayalakshmi, v. R. Manoharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Ragunath Vs M.Abisha

S.Angayarkanni Vs K. Maheswaran

Nalla Thambi Vs N.Palanisamy

N.Mohandass Vs J.Saranya

Soosai Manickam, Vs Jesuraj

Shenbagarajan Vs Backiyalakshmi