Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
P.Marappa Gounder – Appellant
Versus
C.Marudachalam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suit for injunction over disputed common cart track; plaintiff seeks commissioner. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioners object to commissioner without documents. (Para 3 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court upholds commissioner to aid adjudication; revision dismissed. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this revision to set aside the fair and final order dated 01.12.2025 made in I.A. No. 3 of 2025 in O.S. No. 944 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.
2. Before the trial court, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A. No. 3 of 2025 in O.S. No. 944 of 2025 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of theCode of Civil Procedure, seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to visit the petition-mentioned property and note down its physical features. The said application was allowed, and aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, without producing any document, the plaintiff has approached the court seeking to note down the physical features of the property, which belongs to the defendant. Therefore, the petitioners have a valid objection to the appointment of such an Advocate Commissioner.
4.
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
