A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice G.R. Swaminathan allowed a revision petition against a writ petition since previously the order was passed without notice to the review applicant. Further on account of International Day of Disabled Persons, the court directed the judicial officer to prioritize counsels who are physically disabled, whenever advocate commissions are issued.
Facts:
The first respondent herein Mrs. Kaleeswari filed W.P.(MD)No. 16746 of 2022 for survey of the land comprised in Survey Nos.1258/3 and 1258/4 in Malli Village. The court had disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 26.08.2022. In fact, the order passed does not in any way affect the rights of the review applicant. This is because the survey authority was directed to conduct survey only after issuing notice to the adjacent land owners as well as interested persons, if any. The court had also directed that enquiry will be held if the noticees raise objections.
If the survey authority finds substance in the objections, the applicant is to be relegated to move the jurisdictional civil court. Against this, the review application has been filed on the ground that the review applicant had already filed O.S.No.308 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Srivilliputhur and that in the said suit, the court had already appointed an Advocate Commissioner for surveying the suit schedule property. The writ petitioner is the sole defendant therein. The counsel for the review applicant complains that in the writ affidavit, there is no whisper about the pendency of the suit. The writ petitioner had deliberately not impleaded the review applicant as one of the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/R1 claims that the survey numbers for which she sought relief are not part of the suit schedule.
Observations of the Court:
The judge compared the suit schedule with the details set out in the writ petition. He was satisfied that the survey numbers mentioned by the writ petitioner/R1 form part of the suit schedule. The writ petitioner had not impleaded the review applicant. Since the judge had passed the order without notice to the review applicant, the order passed by him in the writ petition stands recalled. The writ petition stands dismissed. This is more so because the Civil Court itself has ordered survey. However, the Principal Sub Court, Srivilliputhur will issue a revised warrant so that a comprehensive survey can be undertaken. The Advocate Commissioner will conduct survey not only the suit schedule properties in general but also the survey numbers mentioned by the writ petitioner/R1 in particular.
Further the court observed that it is quite possible that in Srivilliputhur Bar, there are advocates who are physically challenged. Whenever advocate commissions are issued, some kind of priority can be given to the counsel who are physically disabled. The learned Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur must bear this request while issuing future commissions.
Decision:
The review application is allowed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Case: K. Malathi vs Kaleeswari and 4 others
Citation: Rev.Apl.W(MD)No.88 of 2022 in W.P.(MD)No.16746 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.19847 & 19849 of 2022
Coram: Justice G.R. Swaminathan
Pronounced on: 05.12.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
