Dismissed¶25

R.Manoharan v. S.Natarajan

Madras HC13 Mar 2025CRP/306/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.R.P. No.306 of 2022, Madras High Court, N. Senthilkumar J., 13.03.2025; Article 227 Constitution of India; civil revision against dismissal of Advocate Commissioner appointment; 'C' schedule property not earmarked; no document of right or landlord status; plaint plan did not disclose 'C' schedule; sale deed alleged bogus by respondents; O.S. No.386 of 2015, Additional District Munsif Court, Pollachi; revision dismissed, no costs; C.M.P. No.1502 of 2022 closed; direction to dispose of suit within one year given 10-year pendency.

What did the court decide?

In the absence of any concrete material shown by the plaintiff that the 'C' schedule property belongs to him, and as the plan attached to the plaint did not disclose the 'C' schedule property, the impugned order passed by the trial court needs no interference. ¶20

R.Manoharan Vs S.Natarajan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the civil revision petition filed under Article 227 challenging the trial court's dismissal of I.A. No.1 of 2021 (application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner) in O.S. No.386 of 2015 warrants interference. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The impugned order passed by the trial court dismissing the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner needs no interference.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

¶20

Key takeaways

The civil revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs, and the connected civil miscellaneous petition (C.M.P. No.1502 of 2022) is closed.ratio¶25
Since the underlying suit of the year 2015 has been pending adjudication for the past 10 years, the learned Additional District Munsif Judge, Pollachi, is directed to dispose of the original suit within a period of one year.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Senthilkumar, J.) dismissed a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the fair and decretal order dated 22.11.2021 of the Additional District Munsif Court, Pollachi in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in O.S. No.386 of 2015, whereby the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was refused. The trial court had dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiff had not earmarked the 'C' schedule property and had filed no document establishing his right over it or his landlord status, while the respondents contended that the sale deed itself was bogus. Observing that no concrete material was shown that the 'C' schedule property belonged to the plaintiff and that the plan attached to the plaint did not disclose the 'C' schedule property, the Court held that the impugned order needed no interference, dismissed the revision petition without costs, and closed the connected C.M.P. No.1502 of 2022. Noting that the suit of 2015 had been pending for 10 years, the Court directed the Additional District Munsif Judge, Pollachi to dispose of the original suit within one year.

¶1

C.R.P. No.306 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P. No.306 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.1502 of 2022

¶7

1.R.Manoharan 2.R.Ramakrishnan 3.Smt.Savithri ... Petitioners

¶8

¶9

1.S.Natarajan 2.Mrs.P.Dhavamani ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 22.11.2021 passed in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in O.S. No.386 of 2015 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Pollachi.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Veeraraghavan

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Sudhakar for R2

¶13

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

¶14

Page 1/5

¶15

C.R.P. No.306 of 2022

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The present civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed in

¶18

I.A. No.1 of 2021 in O.S. No.386 of 2015 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Pollachi, which was filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.

¶19

2. In the impugned order, the trial court has dismissed the interlocutory application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner on the ground that the plaintiff has not earmarked 'C' schedule property and had not filed any document to establish that he has right over the same and he is the landlord of the property. It was contested by the respondents that the sale deed itself is a bogus one.

¶20

3. In the absence of any concrete material shown by the plaintiff before the trial court that the 'C' schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and even, the plan attached to the plaint did not disclose the 'C' schedule property, in the

¶21

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

¶22

_______ Page 2/5_

¶23

C.R.P. No.306 of 2022

¶24

said circumstances, the impugned order passed by the trial court needs no interference.

¶25

4. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. Since the suit is of the year 2015, which is pending adjudication for the past 10 years, the learned Additional District Munsif Judge, Pollachi, is directed to dispose of the original suit, within a period of one year from today.

¶26

13.03.2025

¶27

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Asr

¶28

¶29

The Additional District Munsif Court, Pollachi

¶30

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

¶31

_______ Page 3/5_

¶32