Madras High Court
Chinnasamy vs Santhakumari (Died) ...1St on 14 August, 2023
C.R.P(MD)No.2555 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P(MD)No.2555 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD)No.11242 of 2018
Chinnasamy ...Petitioner/Petitioner/
Plaintiff
Vs.
Santhakumari (Died) ...1st Respondent/
1st Defendant
1.Baskara Pandian
2.Jeyameena ...Respondents/
Respondents 2 & 3/
Defendants 2 & 3
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.141 of 2018
in O.S.No.192 of 2014, dated 04.08.2018 on the file of the District
Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Usilampatti.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam
For R1 & R2 : Mr.D.Malaichamy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
C.R.P(MD)No.2555 of 2018
ORDER
The civil revision petition has been filed against the order passed
by the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Usilampatti
in I.A.No.141 of 2018 in O.S.No.192 of 2014, dated 04.08.2018.
2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein
are the defendants 1 to 3 before the Court below.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per
the litigative status before the Court below.
4. It appears that the plaintiff has filed a suit for relief of
permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. In the suit, he has also
moved an application for appointment of Commissioner in I.A.No.665 of
2014 and that the Commissioner was also appointed. The Commissioner
has also filed a report on 07.02.2016. It appears that thereafter, the
petitioner herein has filed an application in I.A.No.141 of 2018 so as to
re-issue of Commission on the ground that the earlier Commissioner’s
report is biased one and he has not mentioned the physical features of the
property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2555 of 2018
5. After considering either side submission, the said application
was dismissed by the Court below with the finding that the plaintiff has
not filed any memo of objection and that he has not moved an application
to scrap the earlier Commissioner’s report, by referring the judgment of
this Court in the case of Kittanammal Vs Nalla Selvam reported in 2005
(2) MLJ 227.
6. Aggrieved with the order, the petitioner is before this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has also
moved an application in I.A.No.173 of 2019 so as to scrap the earlir
Commissioner’s report. Therefore, prayed that subject to the outcome of
I.A.No.173 of 2019, he may be given a liberty to file fresh commission
application. The said submission was also fairly conceded by the learned
counsel for the respondents.
8. Having considered the submissions made by either side, this
Court deem it appropriate to dismiss the instant civil revision petition.
However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move a fresh commission
application subject to the outcome of I.A.No.173 of 2019. In the event of
filing such commission application, the Court below is directed to
dispose of the same according to law. It is also made clear that the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2555 of 2018
below is directed to proceed without being influenced by any of the
observations made in this civil revision petition, while deciding I.A.No.
173 of 2019.
9. In the result, this civil revision petition stands dismissed with
the liberty as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sn
To
1.The District Munsif Cum
Judicial Magistrate Court No.1,
Usilampatti.
2.The Section Officer
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2555 of 2018
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
SN
C.R.P(MD)No.2555 of 2018
14.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
