IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
Mallika W/o. Kariyaraman – Appellant
Versus
Periyasamy S/o. Lakshmanan – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition | CRP No. 1469 of 2026 | CRP No. 1472 of 2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging trial court's dismissal of applications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claim for property division and interim relief. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court directed appointment of advocate commissioner. (Para 5) |
COMMON ORDER
Challenging the impugned orders passed in I.A.Nos.3 and 2 of 2024 in O.S.No.23 of 2024 by the learned Additional District Judge, Attur, the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2. Since the relief is claimed challenging the order passed by the trial judge, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
3. Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff filed two applications seeking for appointment of advocate commissioner and seeking for interim injunction. For that, the respondents have also not raised objections. Inspite of that, both the applications were dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.
4. The learned counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that he approached the court for the relief of declaration and other consequential relief. He would submit that since the defendants have caused interference, he had filed the suit. He would submit that they are adjacent owners and falsely claiming right over the property, which belong to the plaintiff. There is another suit filed by the defendants in O.S.No. 49 of 2024, which is the suit property. But the trial court has held that both parties are one and the same and erroneously dismissed the applications. Hence, he prayed to set aside the findings of trial judge.
5. On perusal of records, the fact reveals that in order to prove the division of the property allotted to the plaintiff family as per the partition deed, the revision petitioner/plaintiff wanted to measure the property along with Surveyor. The fact also reveals that the defendants have not raised any objections and the report of Advocate Commissioner would assist the court to adjudicate the issue. Therefore, considering the nature of relief claimed by the Revision Petitioner, this Court is inclined to set aside the findings rendered in I.A.Nos.3 and 2 of 2024. The trial judge is directed to appoint an advocate commissioner to inspect the suit properties with the assistance of a qualified Surveyor by giving notice to both parties and the respondents/defendants are directed to cooperate with the proceedings. Accordingly, both the applications are ordered to be taken on file and these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed.
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.