C. SARAVANAN
Govindan, S/o. Chithira Azhagu – Appellant
Versus
Malaichamy, S/o. Karuppiah – Respondent
ORDER :
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 31.08.2021, made in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in A.S.No.53 of 2018, on the file of the Sub-Court, Sivagangai.
The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.158 of 2013 is the petitioner before this Court. The petitioner is challenging the impugned fair and decreetal order dated 31.08.2021, passed by the Sub-Court, Sivagangai, in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in A.S.No.53 of 2018.
2. By the impugned order, the Sub-Court, Sivagangai, has rejected I.A.No.1 of 2020 in A.S.No.53 of 2018 filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under :-
3. The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.158 of 2013 for declaration before the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, for declaration, recovery of possession of the suit property and for mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment allegedly made by the petitioner in the suit property.
4. In the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff had also filed I.A.No.1219 of 2013 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. T
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a clear and unambiguous report from the Advocate Commissioner in property dispute cases to enable the Court to resolve the disp....
An advocate commissioner cannot be appointed to gather evidence by the parties.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.