CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajendran vs Lilly Ammal alias Nelli Ammal and another

Madras High Court · Decided on 25 November 1997 · Citation: (1998) 2 CTC 163

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Jagadeesan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 26 Rule 10, 75
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.R.P.No. 1028 of 1997 and C.M.P.Nos. 5319 and 11765 of 1997
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 337 words

S. Jagadeesan, J.

1.

By consent of both the counsel, the Civil Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2.

The petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No. 811 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif, Nagercoil. The first respondent herein has filed

the said suit for declaration of her title and for injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. The suit has

been filed in July, 1994. The petitioner herein filed an application I.A.No. 962 of 1996 for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner, after the

examination of P.W.1, to note down the physical features of the suit property with special reference to the building, to note down the nature of the

property with reference to the level of the property, compound walls ''if any'' on all sides and pathway etc., and such other points as may be

required at the spot. The application was dismissed by the lower court by order dated 19.2.1997 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision

has been filed.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly represented that the appointment of Advocate Commissioner is only to note down the physical features

of the property in respect of the possession and enjoyment of the same, by different parties. This is necessitated because the plaintiff is enjoying the

properties by leasing out the same to tenants and whereas the second defendant claims to be in possession of one of the items of the property and

hence unless the Advocate Commissioner is directed to note down the physical features of the property along with the possession of respective

parties, the petitioner would be prejudiced. From the arguments it is clear that the Advocate Commissioner is sought for only to note down the

possession by the respective parties. For this purpose the Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed. As such I do not find any error of

jurisdiction in the order of the court below and accordingly the revision is dismissed. Consequently, the Civil miscellaneous petitions are, also

dismissed.