Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. VIMALA, J.
Kaliamman Sivan Koil
Versus
K.P. Ramalingam & Another
C.R.P. (NPD). No. 2659 of 2014 & M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided on: 23-09-2014
Appointment of Commissioner - Property Dispute - The court dismissed the application for appointment of Commissioner to determine the location of the property, stating that it was filed after the evidence was closed and during the stage of arguments. The belated filing indicated an intention to delay the proceedings, justifying the dismissal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed an application seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to determine the location of the property after the evidence was closed and during the stage of arguments. The court dismissed the application, stating that it was belated and indicated an intention to delay the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the belated filing of the application indicated an intention to delay the proceedings, justifying the dismissal of the petition. The court concluded that the dismissal of the petition was justified.
Issues: The main issue was whether the application for appointment of Commissioner, filed after the evidence was closed and during the stage of arguments, should be allowed in the interest of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the belated filing of the application for appointment of Commissioner, after the evidence was closed, indicated an intention to delay the proceedings, justifying the dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff, challenging the fair and decretal order dated 21.03.2014 made in I.A.42 of 2014 in O.S.No.388 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore.
2. The petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.42 of 2014 in O.S.No.388 of 2010 seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and the same was dismissed by the Court below by an order dated 21.03.2014.
3. A perusal of the order would go to show that this application was filed after the evidence was over and when the case was posted for arguments. The application for appointment of Commissioner has been filed to find out whether the property in lying in survey number 211/7 or 211/6.
3.1. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the Court below should have allowed the petition in the interest of justice.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that a Commissioner cannot be appointed to gather evidence and that too after the evidence was closed on both sides and therefore the order of the Court below dismissing the petition is justified.
5. The belated filing of the application at the stage of arguments discloses the intention of the plaintiff to drag on the proceedings. The application for appointment of Commissioner should have been filed before the closure of the plaintiffs evidence. No reasons has been stated as to why it was not filed at the earliest point of time. Hence, the dismissal of the petition is justified. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
