Ravichandran vs Amutha
2021 Latest Caselaw 10321 Mad

                                                            1

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 22.04.2021

                                                         Coram

                                      The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

                                               C.R.P. (NPD) No.938 of 2021
                                                          and
                                                 C.M.P.No.7590 of 2021


                     Ravichandran
                                                                ..Petitioner/Petitioner/Appellant

                                                           Vs

                     Amutha
                                                            ..Respondent/Respondent/Respondent



                               Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
                     of India to call for the records relating to the fair and decreetal order
                     dated 13.03.2020 made in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in A.S.No.35 of 2018 on the
                     file of the Principal Sub-ordinate Court, Ariyalur and set aside the same.


                                      For Petitioner            ..    Mr.Usha Ramman

                                      For Respondent            ..    No appearance




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                           2



                                                       ORDER

The appellant in A.S.No.35 of 2018 now pending on the file of the

Sub Court, Ariyalur, is the revision petitioner herein. The appellant had

filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 seeking permission for appointment of an

Advocate Commissioner to once again revisit the property along with a

surveyor and file a report.

2.O.S.No.17 of 2012 had been filed by the plaintiff before the

District Munsif Court Ariyalur, seeking a judgment and decree in the

nature of a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from

interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property and for costs.

The suit schedule property as given in the suit was situtated in

S.F.No.252/14A3 in KK Nagar, South Ariyalur, Ariyalur, and was 50

Feet in length and 3/4 feet in width and 7 feet in height compound wall.

The suit was decreed by a judgment dated 28.09.2018.

3.Questioning that judgment, the present revision petitioner had

filed A.S.No.35 of 2018. In the said appeal he had filed the I.A.No.1 of

2019. That application came to be dismissed by order dated 13.03.2020

and questioning that order the present revision petition has been filed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

4.In the course of the order, the learned Principal Subordinate

Judge very clearly observed that when the suit was pending on two

separate occasions Advocate Commissioner had visited the petitioner

premises. It had also been stated that the Advocate Commissioner had

forwarded a report that there is a difference in the physical features

between the first visit and in the second visit. The learned Judge also

stated that PW-1in his examination had very clearly stated that he is

claiming possession only in S.No.252/14-A3 and he had also never stated

that the said S.No.252/14-A3 comes within the property of the present

petitioner / defendant in the suit / appellant in the appeal. The learned

Judge had therefore stated that sufficient records are available to dispose

of the appeal.

5.The petitioner cannot engage himself in a roving enquiry by

seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and even asking for

the commissioner to revisit the place. The Commissioner visited the

property on two separate occasions. Again the petitioner seeks

appointment of an Advocate Commissioner or for the same

Commissioner to revisit the property in the first appeal proceedings.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

6.Let the parties engage in arguing the first appeal on the basis of

the available records and I am confident that the learned Judge would

pass an order on merits on the basis of available of records and on the

basis of evidence already adduced. A Commissioner cannot be

appointed for collecting evidence to the satisfaction of the present

petitioner. He can give a report with respect to the land as he finds it and

if the report is not to the liking of the present petitioner, he should have

to file his objection.

7.Again in the course of the order of the learned Principal Sub

Judge also observed that with respect to the report before the trial court,

the petitioner had not filed any objections. It is also seen from the perusal

of the judgment of the trial court that the petitioner had not taken any

steps to summon the Advocate Commissioner to test his report and also

question the report filed by him.

8.Since the petitioner had not taken all those steps before the trial

court, I hold that it is only to protract to the first appeal proceedings that

the application was filed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

9.I find no reasons to interfere with the order of the learned Sub

Judge, Ariyalur, passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019. Hence, the Civil Revision

Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, the connected

Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

22.04.2021 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No smv

To The Principal Subordinate Court, Ariyalur.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

smv

C.R.P. (NPD) No.938 of 2021

22.04.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/