SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Mad) 3816

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
Elumalai
Versus
Radhakrishnan
Civil Revision Petition (PD)No.2891 of 2009, & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided On : 18-09-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:P. Murugan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: ---

The appointment of an advocate commissioner for measuring the property was deemed relevant and not prejudicial to the defendant.

Headnote:

Advocate Commissioner - Pathway Dispute - The court appointed an advocate commissioner to measure the suit property with the help of a surveyor and a Village Administrative Officer, despite the defendant's resistance based on certain documents. The court held that the appointment of the advocate commissioner was relevant for the purpose of measuring the property and noting down its physical features, and it would not prejudice the defendant in any way.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the suit pathway is a common pathway for the plaintiff and the defendant, and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff filed an application for the appointment of an advocate commissioner to measure the suit property, which was resisted by the defendant.

Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the defendant's plea and appointed an advocate commissioner to inspect the suit property and measure the same with the help of a surveyor and a Village Administrative Officer. The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition at the admission stage, finding no merits.

Issues: Dispute over the appointment of an advocate commissioner and the relevance of documents filed by the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi: The appointment of the advocate commissioner was deemed relevant for measuring the property and noting down its physical features, and the nature of relief sought in the application was not prejudicial to the defendant.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed at the admission stage, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Judgment :-

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order and decreetal order dated 27. 2009 passed in I.A.No.1415 of 2007 in O.S.No.409 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tindivanam.

2. The suit has been filed for declaration that the suit pathway is the common pathway for the plaintiff and the defendant and for permanent injunction. Pending suit, I.A.No.1415 of 2007 has been filed by the plaintiff for appointment of advocate commissioner to measure the cart track in S.No.163/2B with the help of Surveyor and the Village Administrative Officer and to file a report. Such application was resisted by the present revision petitioner/defendant. The stand of the revision petitioner/defendant is that there is no such pathway. He relies on certain documents.

3. The trial court, however, rejected the revision petitioner/defendants plea and appointed the advocate commissioner to inspect the suit property and measure the same with the help of Surveyor and the Village Administrative Officer and to file a report. The said order is under challenge.

4. The grievance of the revision petitioner/defendant is that the court below has misconstrued the plea of the revision petitioner/defendant and stated that no documents were filed on both sides, whereas a petition was filed to receive documents and without considering the same, the order was passed. This appears to be the main grievance of the petitioner.

5. The nature of the relief sought for in the suit is to declare that the suit pathway is a common pathway for the plaintiff and the defendant which has to be decided in the trial. As far as the documents said to have been filed by the revision petitioner/defendant is concerned, the same has to be considered by the trial court at the time of trial. For the purpose of appointment of advocate commissioner, the relevance of any documents is not a matter for consideration. In any event, the nature of relief sought for in I.A.No.1415 of 2007 is to measure the suit property and to note down the physical features with the help of Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer and to file a report and plan. That by itself will not prejudice to the revision petitioner/defendant in any way. The plea that documents were not considered is not an issue while dealing with the application filed for appointment of advocate commissioner. There is no serious infirmity in the order of the court below to interfere with by this court.

6. Finding no merits, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top