Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Syed Saleem vs Chelladurai
2025 Latest Caselaw 2460 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2460 Mad
Judgement Date : 5 February, 2025

Madras High Court

Syed Saleem vs Chelladurai on 5 February, 2025

Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
                                                                          C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.1745 of 2022




                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
                                                    DATED: 05.02.2025
                                                        CORAM
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
                                             C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.1745 of 2022
                                             and CMP(MD).No.7651 of 2022


                   Syed Saleem                                            ... Petitioner

                                                           -vs-


                   1.Chelladurai
                   2.Kanthiah
                   3.Pooliah
                   4.Kalep Pandiyan                                          ...Respondents


                   PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of
                   Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
                   05.10.2021 passed in I.A.No.69 of 2016 in A.S.No.41 of 2015 on the file
                   of the Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti.


                                   For Petitioner     : Mr.S.Pon Senthil Kumaran
                                   For Respondent     : Mr.C.Senthilmurugan for R4
                                                      : No appearance for R1 to R3




                   1/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                           C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.1745 of 2022


                                                      ORDER

The appellant in A.S.No.41 of 2015 on the file of the

Subordinate Court, Kovilpatti is the revision petitioner.

2.The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has filed O.S.No.94

of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti for the relief of

permanent injunction for four items of property. The suit was dismissed by

the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff has not established his

possession over any of the items. Challenging the same, the revision

petitioner has filed A.S.No.41 of 2015 before the Sub Court, Kovilpatti.

3.Pending first appeal, the revision petitioner as appellant had

filed I.A.No.69 of 2016 for appointment of advocate commissioner to note

down the fact that the defendants are having pathway rights not in

S.No.311 but in S.No.312. This application was resisted by the

respondents.

4.The trial Court after considering the submissions, found that in

a suit for bare injunction the appointment of the advocate commissioner is

wholly unjustifiable. Challenging the same, the present revision petition

has been filed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.1745 of 2022

5.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had contended

that the trial Court has arrived at a finding in paragraph No.13 of the

judgment to the effect that the defendants are claiming pathway rights over

S.No.311. Therefore, the plaintiff would like to establish it before the

Appellate Court that the defendants do not have any pathway rights over

S.No.311, but they are having their rights only over S.No.312. Hence, the

commissioner has to be appointed.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents had

contended that it is for the plaintiff to establish his possession over

S.No.311 to get a decree. The defence taken by the defendants cannot be a

ground for appointment of Advocate Commissioner.

7.I have considered the submissions made on either side and

perused the material records.

8.The facts captured above will clearly indicate that the trial

Court had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent

injunction primarily on the ground that the plaintiff has not established his

possession over all the four items of the suit schedule properties on the

date of filing of the suit. Whether the defendants claims a right of pathway

over S.Nos.311 and 312 will not alter the burden of proof over the plaintiff

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.1745 of 2022

to establish his claim. In such circumstances, the appointment of the

advocate commissioner to find out whether the defendants are having

pathway right over S.No.311 is wholly unnecessary for adjudicating the

dispute between the parties. The First Appellate Court has rightly

dismissed the application.

9.In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in

the revision petition. This Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

05.02.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No msa

To

1.The Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti.

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.1745 of 2022

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J

msa

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.1745 of 2022

05.02.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter