Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4903 (MAD)

Mariam Fathima v. Rukmani Ammal

2010-11-03

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 27.10.2009, made in I.A.No.32 of 2009, in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2008, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, (Rent Controller), Chidambaram. 2. It has been stated that I.A.No.32 of 2009, had been filed by the petitioner herein to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the third and fourth floors of the building in question and to file a report thereon. However, the learned Principal District Munsif, (Rent Controller), Chidambaram, by his order, dated 27.10.2009, had dismissed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.32 of 2009, stating that the request for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, by the petitioner, to inspect the third and fourth floors of the building in question is unnecessary, as it is not the property in dispute, in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2008. It has also been stated that the petitioner had filed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.32 of 2009, only for the purpose of protracting the proceedings, as it had been filed at the time of the cross examination of P.W.1. 3. From the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, in I.A.No.32 of 2009, it is seen that there is no serious objection by the respondent for the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner. However, it has been stated that the court concerned may appoint the Advocate Commissioner and it is for the petitioner to bear all the costs and expenses for such appointment. 4. In view of the averments made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court finds it is appropriate to set aside the order, dated 27.10.2009, made in I.A.No.32 of 2009, in R.C.O.P.NO.2 of 2008, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, (Rent Controller), Chidambaram, and to direct the learned Principal District Munsif, (Rent Controller), Chidambaram, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the third and fourth floors of the building, as prayed for by the petitioner in I.A.No.32 of 2009, and to further direct the Advocate Commissioner to file the report, within a period of four weeks, after such appointment. Further, the learned Principal District Munsif, (Rent Controller), Chidambaram, is also directed to take up R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2008, for final hearing and to dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within three months from the date of the filing of the report by the Advocate Commissioner. The Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.