Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 300 (MAD)

S. R. Thilaga & Another v. A. Muniammal

2009-01-23

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment :- Animadverting upon the order dated 111. 2008 passed by the learned District Munsif, Madurantagam in I.A.No.1409 of 2008 in O.S.No.264 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. A summarization and summation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: The respondent/plaintiff herein filed the suit in O.S.No.264 of 2007 seeking the following reliefs: .- declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the legitimate owner of the suit property. .- to pass an order of interim injunction restraining the first and second defendants, from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.1409 of 2008 was filed seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit property and inspect the same; whereupon the court ordered the Commissioner to visit and note down the physical features of the suit property and to report. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision is focussed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument to the effect that the lower court in its cryptic order without citing any reason, ordered appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and that too in a suit for declaration and injunction and without assigning reason, the court was not justified in appointing an Advocate Commissioner as a matter of course. 5. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that already the Commissioner inspected the suit property; noted the physical features and filed his report also and in such a case, this civil revision petition has become infructuous. 6. Be that as it may, here undoubtedly the Court in its cryptic order appointed an Advocate Commissioner. The lower court was expected to assign reasons and that too when it had chosen to hear both sides, before passing order. Since this is only a case for declaration and injunction and not for possession and no measurement was also involved in the mission of the Advocate Commissioner, I am of the view that no interference by this Court is required on the sole ground that the order was not an elaborate one. 7. Since this is only a case for declaration and injunction and not for possession and no measurement was also involved in the mission of the Advocate Commissioner, I am of the view that no interference by this Court is required on the sole ground that the order was not an elaborate one. 7. Hence, in this view of the matter, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.