Madras High Court
Dharani vs Ramanan on 30 June, 2021
C.R.P.(PD).No.3015 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(PD).No.3015 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.17506 of 2018
Dharani ... Petitioner
Vs
Ramanan ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 13.07.2018 passed in
I.A.No.619 of 2018 in O.S.No.188 of 2007 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Madurantagam.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan
For Respondent : Mr.N.Nagusah
**********
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.3015 of 2018
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Fair and Decreetal
Order dated 13.07.2018 passed in I.A.No.619 of 2018 in O.S.No.188 of
2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantagam, thereby allow
the petition to condone the delay in filing the objections to the Advocate
Commissioner's report.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant.
The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction in
respect of the suit property. At the time of filing the suit itself the petitioner
filed a petition for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and the same
was allowed without any notice to the respondent herein.
3. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the suit property and filed
his report as early as 31.07.2007 itself. Thereafter, the trial was commenced
and when the matter was posted for Judgment, after completion of
arguments on both sides, the petitioner filed petition to examine the
Advocate Commissioner as Court witness and also to mark the report with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.3015 of 2018
plan. The same was allowed and when the commissioner was in a witness
box, the respondent was denied permission to cross examine the Advocate
Commissioner for the reason that the respondent failed to file any objections
of the Advocate Commissioner's report dated 31.07.2007.
4. Therefore, the respondent was constrained to file a petition to
condone the delay of 3875 days in filing the petitions to the Advocate
Commissioner's report. However, the said petition was allowed by the
Court below. The respondent had knowledge about the appointment of the
Advocate Commissioner as well as the report filed by him even at the time
of evidence of the plaintiff side. even then, the respondent failed to file his
objections to the Advocate Commissioner's report. Only at the time of
examination of the Advocate Commissioner, the respondent filed the
present petition to condone the delay of huge days in filing his objections.
5. Accordingly, Order dated 13.07.2018 passed in I.A.No.619 of 2018
in O.S.No.188 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Madurantagam is set aside and this Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
However, the respondent is permitted to cross examine the Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.3015 of 2018
Commissioner on the date fixed by the Courts below. Thereafter, the trial
Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to costs.
30.06.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
rna
To
The District Munsif Court,
Madurantagam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.3015 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rna
C.R.P.(PD).No.3015 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.17506 of 2018
30.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
