IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J
Maria Jaganathan – Appellant
Versus
Murphy Thomas – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal of application for advocate commissioner appointment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against the appointment. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. outcome of the civil revision petition. (Para 5) |
ORDER
The said suit was filed by the first respondent seeking declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. During the pendency of the suit before the trial Court, the petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1 of 2019 under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features with the help of the Town Surveyor. The said petition was dismissed on 11.08.2021 on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that, in the event, the Advocate Commissioner's report is found to be contrary to the interest of the first respondent, this Court may grant liberty to the first respondent to file objections before the trial Court.
5. In the result:
(b) the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tenkasi, is hereby directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner within a period of two
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.