Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
Thangammal – Appellant
Versus
Venkatachalamurthi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to trial court's dismissal of commissioner application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's submission on aged plaintiff and property interference. (Para 3) |
| 3. commissioner's report necessary for property usage and relief assessment. (Para 4) |
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.03 of 2025 in O.S.No.174 of 2017 by the learned District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2. Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Sec.151 of C.P.C. seeking to appoint advocate commissioner in order to note down the physical features and to measure the property. But, the same was dismissed by the trial judge holding that the plaintiff has to prove her case by producing evidence and thereafter only, she is entitled for the relief and the reason assigned for appointment of advocate commissioner has no nexus with the main relief. Aggrieved over that, she preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
3.The learned counsel for revision petitioner would submit that the plaintiff is aged about 87 years old and she filed the suit for declaration and
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
