M.Maideen vs Muthupandiyan
2021 Latest Caselaw 11729 Mad

                                                            1

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 15.06.2021

                                                         Coram

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

                                               C.R.P. (PD) No.1142 of 2021
                                                           and
                                                 C.M.P.No.8813 of 2021

                     M.Maideen                                  ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff


                                                           Vs

                     1.Muthupandiyan
                     2.Sasikala
                                                         ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants


                               Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
                     of India to set aside the order and Decreetal order dated 07.03.2020 made
                     in I.A.No.498 of 2019 in O.S.No.44 of 2015 on the file of the District
                     Munsif Court, Tiruthuraippoondi, Tiruvarur District.


                                      For Petitioner            ..     Mr.K.Sellathurai

                                      For Respondents           ..     No appearance




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


                                                           ORDER

The revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.44

of 2015 now pending on the file of the learned District Munsif,

Tiruthuraippoondi. O.S.No.44 of 2015 has been filed for permanent

injunction.

2.During the course of the pendency of the suit, the defendants had

filed an application seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. An

Advocate Commissioner had also been appointed, and a report had been

filed.

3.It is the grievance of Mr.K.Sellathurai, learned counsel for the

petitioner that the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner is a

biased report. However, the report still stands. That is an another

grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, who states that

the report should be actually set aside and rejected by the learned District

Munsif, Tiruthuraipoondi.

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

4.Be that as it may, the trial in the suit had commenced. On the

side of the revision petitioner/plaintiff, four witnesses have already been

examined. PW-4 is the Land Surveyor. It is also stated by the

Mr.K.Sellathurai, learned counsel that the Advocate Commissioner had

also been examined and had been cross-examined on behalf of the

present petitioner herein.

5.Therefore, instead of appointing another Advocate

Commissioner, seeking which relief, I.A.No.498 of 2019 had been filed

and which application came to be dismissed by the learned District

Munsif, Tiruthuraipoondi, by order dated 07.03.2020 giving rise to the

present Revision Petition, a direction is given to the learned District

Munsif, Tiruthuraipoondi, to examine the report of the learned Advocate

Commissioner, not just on the basis of the report, per se, but also on the

basis of the cross-examination of the Advocate Commissioner by the

plaintiff and thereafter come to a considered decision whether to accept

or to reject the report of the Advocate Commissioner's report. Either way,

the learned District Munsif should give reasons to either rejecting or for

accepting the Advocate Commissioner's report. These reasons should

form part of the main judgment.

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

6.The parties are directed to go back to the trial process and

adduce evidence in the normal course. The learned District Munsif,

Tiruthuraipoondi, should apply his mind and thereafter, give a

considered judgment on all the issues framed by him and also whether he

is going to accept or reject the report of the Advocate Commissioner.

Such finding should also be based on the cross-examination conducted

by the plaintiff.

7.Mr.K.Sellathurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

placed a further request that if it is required the petitioner may also if file

necessary application to summon the Advocate Commissioner to subject

himself for further cross-examination. If necessary application in that

regard is filed and if appreciable reasons are given, the learned District

Munsif, Tiruthuraipoondi, may apply his mind and pass appropriate

orders.

8.With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is

disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous

Petition is closed.

15.06.2021 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No smv https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

smv

To The District Munsif Court, Tiruthuraipoondi.

C.R.P. (PD) No.1142 of 2021

15.06.2021

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