Madras High Court
S.Chinnaiya Reddy vs K.Chidambaram on 10 March, 2021
CRP(PD).No.2249 of 2018 and CMP.No.14112 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.03.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
CRP(PD).No.2249 of 2018
and CMP.No.14112 of 2018
1.S.Chinnaiya Reddy
2.Maragatham ... Petitioners
Versus
1.K.Chidambaram
2.C.Ambiga
3.The Thasildhar,
Vellore Taluk Office,
Vellore.
4.The District Collector,
Vellore – 9.
5.Jayanthi ... Respondents
Civil Revision is filed under filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decree dated 05.06.2018, made
in I.A.No.1410 of 2017 in O.S.No.112 of 2017, on the file of the Additional
District Munsif, at Vellore, by allowing the present Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Gouthaman
For Respondents : No appearance
****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
CRP(PD).No.2249 of 2018 and CMP.No.14112 of 2018
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order and decree
dated 05.06.2018, made in I.A.No.1410 of 2017 in O.S.No.112 of 2017, on the
file of the Additional District Munsif, at Vellore, by allowing the present Civil
Revision Petition.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners herein filed an Interlocutory application in I.A.No.1410 of 2014 for
the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property
along with the Taluk Surveyor and find out the damages of iron wire fencing,
stones, buildings and coconut trees by the respondent and find out the salient
features of the suit properties with boundaries and file the report along with the
rough sketch.
3.Further the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that the suit is filed for declaration and for bare injunction. The Court below,
without considering the necessity for the appointment of the Advocate
Commissioner, it has dismissed the application stating that the Advocate
Commissioner cannot be appointed to find out the factum of possessin of any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD).No.2249 of 2018 and CMP.No.14112 of 2018
property relating to the dispute, or to find out the evidence. In fact appointment
of the Advocate Commssioner would help this court to adjudicate the case in a
proper manner and to arrive at a correct finding.
4.In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner referred the Judgment rendered by this court in the case of B.Amutha
/Vs./ Anandhi Sankara Narayanan reported in 2016 5 Law Weekly 658. By
referring the above case, he submitted that there is no bar for appointing the
Advocate Commissioner in the present suit. Therefore, the finding of the court
below is improper and the same is liable to be set aside.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Though
the respondents appeared through the learned counsel, but today none appeared
for the respondents.
6.Upon hearing and on perusal of the order of the Court below, the
plaintiff filed this suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit properties
mentioned in the schedule, to grant permanent injunction restraining the
defendant his men and agents, servants, subordinates etc from interfering with
the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties; to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD).No.2249 of 2018 and CMP.No.14112 of 2018
appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and to measure
the same with the help of Taluk Surveyor and to file a report with plan and
awarding the cost of suit for the plaintiff.
7.Admittedly, the suit was filed for the purpose of declaration and
permanent injunction and not for damages. He has filed an application in
I.A.No.1410 of 2017, for the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to
inspect the property along with the Taluk Surveyor to find out the damages
caused by the defendants to iron wire fencing, stones, buildings and coconut
trees by the defendant and find out the salient features of the suit properties
with boundaries.
8.When the suit was filed for the declaration of title and permanent
injunction, the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner is sought to file a
report on the damages with regard to iron wire fencing, stones, buildings and
coconut trees by the respondents and find out the salient features of the suit
properties with boundaries. The said report of the Advocate Commissioner is
no way going to help the court to arrive at a finding whether the respondents
interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff's suit schedule property
or not and for declaration of title.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD).No.2249 of 2018 and CMP.No.14112 of 2018
9.It is for the revision petitioners to establish and to prove their case
by way of documentary as well as the oral evidences with regard to the
interference of the plaintiff's peaceful possession. The case of the revision
petitioners is to find out the damages of iron wire fencing, stones, buildings and
coconut trees by the respondent and find out the salient features of the suit
properties with boundaries.
10.In the present case, the revision petitioners have not filed any suit
for damages, thus the finding of the damages with regard to iron wire fencing,
stones, buildings and coconut trees by the respondents, will no way going to
help the court to adjudicate the dispute among the parties
11.Due to the nature of relief sought in the suit, to adjudicate the
present dispute among the parties, the ascertainment of damages by the
Advocate Commissioner is not necessary.
12.Thus, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the present Civil
Revision Petition. The Court below has considered and passed a detailed order
and there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.
Hence, the above said Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD).No.2249 of 2018 and CMP.No.14112 of 2018
13.In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
10.03.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
ah
To
The Additional District Munsif,
Vellore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD).No.2249 of 2018 and CMP.No.14112 of 2018
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.,
ah
CRP(PD).No.2249 of 2018
and CMP.No.14112 of 2018
10.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
