Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 79 (MAD)

Shadrach Paul v. R. Raju

2013-01-04

G.RAJASURIA

body2013
Judgment 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 01.10.2012 passed in I.A.No.620 of 2012 in O.S.No.828 of 2005, by the learned Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. 3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would echo the cri de coeur and heart burns of his client to the effect that the lower Court unjustifiably appointed an Advocate Commissioner in this case simply by way of responding to the unjustifiable prayer of the plaintiff, which warrants interference in this Civil Revision Petition. 4. A mere running of the eye over the impugned order passed by the lower Court would clearly demonstrate and display that the lower Court simply appointed the Advocate Commissioner to measure the petition schedule property with the help of a qualified surveyor and note down the physical features. 5. I could see absolutely no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court. The suit itself is one for the recovery of the possession of the schedule mentioned property. In a suit for recovery of possession, even at the trial stage itself getting appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property, will be really helpful, because in the event of a decree passed, there could be no problem at the execution stage. There is no merit in this Civil Revision Petition. 6. However, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would express an apprehension that with the help of the Advocate Commissioner, they should not fish out any evidence. 7. It is quite obvious and axiomatic that the Advocate Commissioner cannot fish out any evidence which is beyond the scope the Advocate Commissioner's warrant. Here, the Advocate Commissioner's warrant is only to visit the suit property and measure the same with the help of a qualified surveyor and note down the physical features and nothing more. 8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.