Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1425 (MAD)

Murugesan v. Paramasivam & Others

2007-04-21

S.PALANIVELU

body2007
Judgment :- The petitioner as plaintiff, had filed a suit in O.S.No.379 of 1994 before the District Munsif Court, Perambalur for Permanent Injunction. Since the said suit was dismissed on the ground that the existence of the pathway was not established, he preferred an appeal in A.S.No.32 of 1997 before the Sub Court, Ariyalur. Along with the appeal, he filed I.A.No.141 of 1997 for appointment an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the suit property and note down the physical features of the suit property. Subsequent to the constitution of District Court, Perambalur, the said appeal was transferred to the District Court, Perambalur and re-numbered as I.A.No.117 of 2003 and A.S.No.144 of 2002. The issue to be decided in the case is with regard to the existence of a pathway. 2. The said application was allowed to be pending for about 7 years right from 1997. The petitioner herein did not take any steps for the disposal of the said application. However the matter was taken up and heard by the learned District Judge, Perambalur. On 110. 2003, after hearing both sides, the learned District Judge has dismissed the application, observing that the application has been pending for over seven years; that before the lower Court, the appellant/plaintiff had not taken any steps for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and after 10 years the physical features have been changed and even if the Commissioner is appointed, it is not possible for the Commissioner to find out the physical features as on the date of filing of the suit and that the petition is a belated one. The appellant/plaintiff has carried the said order in Revision before this Court. .3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the pendency of the application before the appellate Court might not constitute a ground for dismissal of the application and there is no possibility for the change of physical features of the suit property and that the appointment of Commissioner will not cause any damage or prejudice to the parties. He drew attention of the Court to the decision rendered by this court in PR.Chockalingmam -Vs- 1) M.Pitchai, 2)V.Lakshmanan (2003-4-L.W.77), in which it has been held as under: An analysis of the above judgments would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the appellate Court, while considering the application for appointment of Commissioner, should not order the application for the sake of asking. Since the power could be exercised judicially, the proper application of mind to the facts of the case is essential before either ordering or rejecting such application. No hard and fast rule can be laid down that in all cases of application filed for appointment of commissioner, that it should be only heard along with the appeal and the Court should order the appointment of Commissioner only in the event it satisfies for such commission during the hearing of the appeal. While the question of identity of the property is pleaded, it would be only proper for the Court to first collect the materials as to the identity of the property by way of a report from the commissioner to adjudicate the dispute at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. In the said judgment, the learned Judge, while discussing about appointment of a Commissioner in the suit, has observed that merely if a request was made for appointment of Commissioner it will not follow, that the Commissioner has to be appointed and that the power has to be exercised judiciously with proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also held that while the question of identity of the property is pleaded, it would be only proper for the Court to first collect the materials as to the identity of the property by way of a report from the Commissioner to adjudicate the dispute at the time of hearing of the appeal. .5. While adverting to the facts of the present case, it is with regard to the finding out of existence of a pathway. The suit was filed in the year 1994 and the suit was dismissed and appeal was filed in the year 1997. In the written statement filed by the defendants before the District Munsif Court, the defence was taken that no alternative path way is available and the existence of the path way was disputed. The plaintiff had not taken any steps for appointment of commissioner before the trial Court and even before the appellate Court, the present petitioner was not ready in the application for appointment of Commissioner. The District Judge has observed that the physical features might have changed. The plaintiff had not taken any steps for appointment of commissioner before the trial Court and even before the appellate Court, the present petitioner was not ready in the application for appointment of Commissioner. The District Judge has observed that the physical features might have changed. This Court is quite agreeable with the reasonings assigned by the learned District Judge that the physical features are bound to get altered due to the passage of time and even if the commissioner is appointed at this stage, it may not be possible for him to describe the features which were available at the time of filing of the suit and the appointment of commissioner may not be useful for the proper and final adjudication of the rights of the parties. In these circumstances, there is no necessity to dislodge the findings of the learned District Judge and the Civil Revision petition suffers dismissal. 6. In fine, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.