Madras High Court
K.Amalraj vs N.K.Ganesan on 29 June, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2340 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2340 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.14500 of 2018
1. K.Amalraj
2. John Manohar ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. N.K.Ganesan
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Pallavaram,
Chrompet,
Chennai – 600 044. ... Respondents
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the order and decreetal order dated
05.03.2018 in I.A.No.140 of 2016 in A.S.No.41 of 2011 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge, Tambaram.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.L.Ganthimathi
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.AR.Balaji
For Mr.B.Vijay
For R2 : Dr.S.Suriya
Government Advocate (CS)
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2340 of 2018
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and
decreetal order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge,
Tambaram, in I.A.No.140 of 2016 in A.S.No.41 of 2011, thereby dismissing
the petition for seeking appointment of advocate commissioner.
2. The petitioners are the defendants and the first respondent is
the plaintiff. The first respondent filed suit in O.S.No.92 of 2006 for
declaration and recovery of possession after removal of construction put up
in the suit property. While pending the suit, the first respondent filed
petition seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit
property and to measure the suit property with the help of Taluk Surveyor.
Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he inspected
the property and filed his report. In fact, the Surveyor also filed his report
and all the documents were marked as Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3. Thereafter the suit
was decreed in favour of the first respondent by the judgment and decree
dated 04.01.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed an
appeal suit in A.S.No.41 of 2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2340 of 2018
3. While pending the appeal suit, after the period of five years,
the petitioners filed this present petition in I.A.No.140 of 2016 for seeking
appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features
of the suit property with the help of taluk Surveyor. The said petition was
filed by the petitioners for the reason that the earlier Advocate
Commissioner did not note down the exact measurement of the suit property
as such, he sought for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The
appellate Court dismissed the said petition as against which the present
Civil Revision Petition.
4. On perusal of records, the petitioners did not file any objection
to the earlier Advocate Commissioner's report before the trial Court.
Therefore, without even filing any objection to the earlier Advocate
Commissioner's report, in the appeal suit, that too after the period of five
years on the file of the appeal suit, the present petition has been filed.
Therefore, the appellate Court rightly dismissed the petition and this Court
finds no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2340 of 2018
5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
29.06.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2340 of 2018
To
1. The Subordinate Judge,
Tambaram
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2340 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2340 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.14500 of 2018
29.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
