Madras High Court
Radhamani vs Gopal ... 1St on 17 June, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.06.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P.PD.No.1160 of 2021
1.Radhamani
2.Abi (Minor)
Rep. by her mother and natural guardina
Mrs. Radhamani.
... Petitioners/Respondents 2 & 3 / Defendants 2 & 3
Vs
1.Gopal ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff
Sengottaiyan (deceased)
Karuppanna Gounder (deceased)
2.Poongodi
3.Boopathi @ Rajendran
4.Dhanapakkiyam
5.Saraswathi
... Respondents 2 to 5/ Respondents 4 to 8 / Defendants 4 to 8
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 18.01.2021 made in
I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.84 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Paramathi, Namakkal District.
For Petitioner .. Mr.K.Sadhananthan
http://www.judis.nic.in
For Respondent .. No appearance
2
ORDER
The 2nd and 3rd defendants in O.S.No.84 of 2011 now pending on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramathi, Namakal District, are the
revision petitioners herein.
2.They are aggrieved by an order dated 18.01.2021 made in
I.A.No.1 of 2020 which application had been filed by the plaintiff in the
suit under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC., seeking appointment of an
Advocate Commissioner to measure the property with the help of
surveyor. The said application came to be allowed. The learned Judge,
had held that a report by an Advocate Commissioner with the
measurements of the said property would be helpful in adjudicating the
issues.
3.The reason now canvased by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the suit had been pending from the year 2011 and the
petitioners herein have joined in the proceedings and filed the written
statement. But, the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1 of 2020 had
been filed after a considerable period of time only with a sole aim to drag
on the proceedings.
4.It is seen that the suit had been filed seeking declaration of title
and it is the contention of the present petitioners that the property itself is
http://www.judis.nic.in
an ancestral property and a portion had been allotted to the present
petitioners herein by way of settlement, which had been executed much
long back. However, reference to such settlement had not been stated in
the written statement. The learned Judge had very specifically held that
for proper adjudication of issues in the suit, a report by an Advocate
Commissioner would be very helpful.
5.In view of that particular reasoning given, I do not find any
reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Munsif,
Paramathi.
6.However, a direction is given to the learned District Munsif,
Paramathi, to deliver the final judgment in O.S.No.84 of 2011 which is
definitely more than ten years old from the date of its presentation on or
before 31.07.2021.
7.With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is
disposed of. No costs.
17.06.2021
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
smv
To
The District Munsif Court, Paramathi.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
Smv
C.R.P.PD.No.1160 of 2021
17.06.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
