Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2162 (MAD)

P. Nagalingam v. Mari

2013-06-24

M.DURAISWAMY

body2013
Judgment :- 1. Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved over the fair and final order passed in I.A.Nos.418 and 419 of 2010 in O.S.No.587 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Poonamalleee, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petitions. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.587 of 2010 for permanent injunction. The said suit was filed in the year 2000. The respondent, who is the defendant in the suit, filed his written statement in the year 2002. Thereafter, ex-parte decree was passed in the year 2009 and subsequently, the same was set aside and the suit was restored to file. When the suit was posted for trial and after the completion of the evidence of plaintiff and defendant side witnesses, the suit was reserved for judgment. 4. At that stage, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.418 of 2010 to re-open the suit and I.A.No.419 of 2010 to appoint Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property. The respondent filed his counter and opposed the petitions. The trial Court after taking into consideration the case of both parties dismissed the applications. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petitions. 5. On careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by both the counsel, it could be seen that though the respondent/defendant filed his written statement as early as in the year 2002, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to seek for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features. That apart, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction. Such being the case, the plaintiff cannot file the application seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for gathering evidence through the Advocate Commissioner. The plaintiff kept quiet for nearly 8 years for filing the present application seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. Further, the said applications were filed when the evidence was closed and the suit was reserved for judgment. The plaintiff has not explained the reasons for the delay in filing the present applications. The trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff has filed the present applications after the closure of the evidence and arguments and when the suit was reserved for judgment. 6. The trial Court after relying on various judgments of this Court rightly dismissed the applications. The trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff has filed the present applications after the closure of the evidence and arguments and when the suit was reserved for judgment. 6. The trial Court after relying on various judgments of this Court rightly dismissed the applications. I find no error or irregularity in the orders passed by the trial Court. 7. The Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 8. The learned counsel on either side represented that the sole respondent had died on 14.5.2012 and the parties had filed L.R.Petition before the trial Court and the same was allowed by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file amended plaint within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent/defendant shall file his additional written statement within one week thereafter. Since the suit is of the year 2000, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit on or before 31.07.2013. The trial Court is also directed to send a report with regard to the disposal of the suit to this Court.