IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 19.01.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

C.R.P.No.763 of 2020 and

C.M.P.No.4060 of 2020

R.Arivuchelvam

... Petitioner/Petitioner/

Plaintiff/Petitioner

Vs.

1. S.Jayaprakash

2. S.Chenthilampathi

... Respondents/Respondents/

Defendants/Respondent

Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India to set aside the fair and final order

dated 16.09.2019 made in I.A.No.18 of 2016 in I.A.No.3710 of

2013 in O.S.No.224 of 2013 on the file of V Additional District

Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner

: Mr.M.Aswinkumar for

Mr.S.Mukunth

For Respondents

: No appearance

O R D E R

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set

aside the fair and final order dated 16.09.2019 made in I.A.18

of 2016 in I.A.No.3710 of 2013 in O.S.No.224 of 2013 on the file

of V Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, by raising

various grounds.

2. The case of the petitioner is that originally a suit

was filed by the petitioner, namely, Arivuselvam against the

respondents / defendants seeking to declare the petitioner /

plaintiff as absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property

pursuance to the sale deed dated 17.09.2007 under document

no.4709 of 2007 with regard to the south-north wall to an

extent of 2 feet breadth 49 feet width 9 feet height in the

petitioner / plaintiff's eastern boundary limit on its eastern

Page numbers

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

side boundary of the suit property ; to grant permanent

injunction restraining the respondents and their men from

disturbing or interfering with the petitioner's peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit property either by

finishing the construction work on the eastern boundary of the

suit property and to grant Mandatory Injunction directing the

defendants and their men to re-construct the south-north wall to

an extent of 2 feet breadth 40 feet width 9 feet height in the

plaintiff's eastern boundary limit on its eastern side of suit

property at their cost.

3. In contrary, a written statement was filed by the

respondents / defendants stating that the cause of action does

not arise for filing the suit. In the said written statement,

it has been stated that already a Commissioner was appointed by

the court below and the Commissioner visited the suit property

with the help of surveyor, found the actual state of affairs and

the Commissioner has clearly came to a conclusion that the said

north south wall absolutely belongs to the respondents and the

report filed by the Commissioner also clearly shows that these

respondents are entitled to further space on the western side of

the north south wall.

4. That being the statements by the respondents /

defendants, the petitioner / plaintiff filed I.A.No.3710 of 2013

in O.S.No.224 of 2013 to scrap the Advocate Commissioner's

report and Surveyor Report in I.A.No.152 of 2013 and to appoint

a fresh advocate commissioner to note down the physical features

of the suit property and also with the assistance of the

surveyor to fix the boundaries and measures the suit properties

properly, as per deed and find out the encroachment made by the

respondents and to take photos by proper photograph and fix

report with plan.

5. Under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of CPC, this

application, viz., I.A.No.3710 of 2013 in O.S.No.224 of 2013 was

dismissed by the learned I Additional District Munsif,

Coimbatore by an order dated 03.02.2014 to scrap the advocate

commissioner report to note down the physical features of the

suit property with the assistance of a surveyor to fix the

boundaries, measure the suit property and to find out the

encroachment made by the respondents.

6. Challenging the said dismissal, the petitioner has

filed a C.R.P.No.2980 of