Madras High Court
Palpandian vs Muthuramu on 25 October, 2021
CRP.(MD)Nos.1615 & 1616 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
CRP.(MD)Nos.1615 & 1616 of 2021
and
CMP.(MD)No.8750 of 2021
Palpandian ... Petitioner in both CRPs.
Vs.
1.Muthuramu
2.Pandi
3.Thangavel
4.Veni
5.Ayyanar
6.Sathiyaraj
7.Shanmugam
8.Pandiammal
9.Shanmugavalli ... Respondents in both CRPs.
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and final order
dated 09.04.2021 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi in
I.A.Nos.17 & 18 of 2021 in A.S.No.72 of 2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
(in both CRPs.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.(MD)Nos.1615 & 1616 of 2021
COMMON ORDER
These civil revision petitions have been filed against the
dismissal of the petition to reopen the case in I.A.No.17 of 2021 in
A.S.No.72 of 2017 and dismissal of the petition to appoint an
Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No.18 of 2021 in A.S.No.72 of 2017
by the Sub-Judge, Paramakudi.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.72 of 2016, on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi seeking for
injunction in respect of scheduled property and the same was
dismissed on 07.09.2017. Against the dismissal of the suit, the
petitioner had preferred an appeal and it is pending on the file of
the Sub Court, Paramakudi in A.S.No.72 of 2017. He would further
submit that it is the case of the petitioner that the suit schedule
property belonged to the first respondent by way of sale deed,
dated 06.09.1945. In the said document, the suit schedule property
was described as 12th item. However, the Trial Court has found
that the plaint schedule property was not tallying with the sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.(MD)Nos.1615 & 1616 of 2021
deed, dated 06.09.1945 and thereby the petitioner had filed a
petition for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to find out
the correct survey boundary, for the purpose of resolving the
dispute between the parties. The appointment of an Advocate
Commissioner is necessary for the purpose of identification of suit
schedule property and to note down the physical features and to
find out the extract nature of the property, whereas, the Appellate
Court without consideration, had wrongly dismissed the same.
Therefore, the present civil revision petitions have been filed.
3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the materials available on record.
4.It is seen that the petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.72 of
2016, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi, seeking
for an injunction. The Trial Court, had dismissed the suit by
judgment and decree, dated 07.09.2017. Against which, an appeal
had been preferred during the year 2017. Though it is submitted
by the learned counsel for th petitioner that necessary grounds
were raised in the appeal, the petition for appointment of an
Advocate Commissioner has been filed, at a much belated stage,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.(MD)Nos.1615 & 1616 of 2021
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.,
gns
when the case was posted for arguments. The Appellate Court
finding that the petitioner has not stated any valid reasons for non-
appointment of an Advocate Commissioner during trial and he has
not raised this issue before the Trial Court and further finding that
it was filed at the stage of arguments only to delay the appeal had
dismissed the same and consequently, dismissed the reopen
petition also.
5.I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders passed
by the Appellate Court and these civil revision petitions are
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
25.10.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
gns
To
The Subordinate Court,
Paramakudi.
CRP.(MD)Nos.1615 & 1616 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
