Dhanalakshmi Vs Jayaraman — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Dhanalakshmi Vs Jayaraman — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil Revision Petition allowed with no costs; Sub Judge, Neyveli directed to dispose of IA.No.136 of 2012 in OS.No.45 of 2008 within one month from 03.03.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, should direct the Sub Judge, Neyveli to dispose of IA No.136 of 2012 in OS No.45 of 2008 (application for passing of final decree, pending since 30.01.2012) within a fixed period. +1 more

Court's answer

Directions issued that the learned Sub Judge, Neyveli shall dispose of IA.No.136 of 2012 in OS.No.45 of 2008 within a period of one month from 03.03.2025.

Key takeaways

The Court observed that it was at a loss to understand why the entire Advocate Commissioner's report had to be eschewed; however, it did not adjudicate this point and proceeded on the footing 'Be that as it may'.obiter¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P.(PD).No. 556 of 2025) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, decided by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (P.T. Asha, J.) on 25.02.2025. The petitioners, decree-holders in OS No.45 of 2008 who obtained a decree on 26.03.2010, sought a direction for early disposal of IA No.136 of 2012, their application for passing of final decree filed on 30.01.2012 before the Sub Judge, Neyveli. An Advocate Commissioner, appointed only on 23.03.2021, submitted his report on 11.02.2022; the matter was kept pending for objections thereafter. By order dated 13.09.2024 the Sub Judge eschewed the entire report on the ground that the Advocate Commissioner had not divided the properties into 3 equal shares and only one sketch had been filed. The High Court expressed itself at a loss to understand why the entire report had to be eschewed, but without adjudicating that point, and noting that the matter stood posted to 03.03.2025 for the Advocate Commissioner's report, directed the Sub Judge, Neyveli to dispose of IA No.136 of 2012 in OS No.45 of 2008 within one month from 03.03.2025. Civil Revision Petition allowed; no costs.

C.R.P.(PD).No. 556 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 25.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

C.R.P.(PD).No. 556 of 2025

1.Dhanalakshmi

2.Banumathi

3.Panneer Selvi

4.Parimala

...Petitioners

Vs.

1.Jayaraman

2.Lakshmanan

3.Rajam

4.Jayalakshmi ...Respondents

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the Sub Judge, Neyveli to dispose the IA No.136 of 2012 in OS No.45 of 2008.

1/6

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

C.R.P.(PD).No. 556 of 2025

For Petitioner : Mr. K.C.Karl Marx

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking an early disposal of IA.No.136 of 2012, which is an application filed for passing of final decree.

This is a rather unfortunate case where the petitioners who

have got a decree as early as on 26.03.2010 and who have filed a final

decree proceedings in the year 2012 are yet to get the properties partitioned thereby favouring the respondents who are squatting on the property which belongs to all.

The B Diary extracts would show that the final decree

proceedings have been filed on 30.01.2012. The Advocate Commissioner was appointed as late as on 23.03.2021. The learned Advocate Commissioner has also submitted his report on 11.02.2022. The matter was kept pending for objections from 11.02.2022 onwards.

2/6

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

C.R.P.(PD).No. 556 of 2025

Thereafter, for the reasons best known to the learned Sub

Judge, without passing orders on the basis of the report already submitted, the learned Judge by order dated 13.09.2024 eschewed the earlier report. The reason being that the learned Advocate Commissioner has not divided the properties into 3 equal shares and only one sketch has been filed.

This Court is at loss to understand as to why the entire report

had to be eschewed.

Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners would submit that they are yet to receive notice from the Advocate Commissioner for the visit. It is informed that the matter is posted on 03.03.2025, for the Advocate Commissioner's report.

3/6

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

C.R.P.(PD).No. 556 of 2025

Therefore, directions are issued that the learned Sub Judge,

Neyveli, shall dispose of IA.No.136 of 2012 in OS.No.45 of 2008, within a period of one month from 03.03.2025.

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.

25.02.2025

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

kan

To

4/6

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

C.R.P.(PD).No. 556 of 2025

The Sub Judge, Neyveli.

P.T. ASHA, J,

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

5/6

C.R.P.(PD).No. 556 of 2025

kan

C.R.P.(PD).No. 556 of 2025

25.02.2025

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

6/6