Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3550 (MAD)

R. Govindarajan v. P. Saravanan

2015-10-29

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2015
ORDER The defendants in O.S.No.487 of 2014 on the file of learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur are the revision petitioners herein. The respondent herein is the plaintiff therein. The suit is for permanent injunction. 2. The respondent / plaintiff filed I.A.No.879 of 2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for interim injunction and the Trial Court has granted an order of interim injunction. Thereafter, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.962/2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of C.P.C. to vacate the said order of interim injunction. 3. A common order dated 23.07.2014 was passed in I.A.Nos.879 and 962 of 2014. It is relevant to extract hereunder paragraph No.6 of the order dated 23.07.2014 passed in I.A.Nos.879 and 962 of 2014:- The aforesaid passage makes it clear that the Trial Court directed the respondent / plaintiff not to proceed with the further construction. 4. In these circumstances, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.1202 of 2014 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the status of the construction. But, the Trial Court rejected the application in I.A.No.1202 of 2014 in O.S.No.487 of 2014 on 24.11.2014. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The Trial Court has passed an order directing the respondent/plaintiff not to proceed with further construction. So, the status of the construction has to be ascertained. Hence, I am of the view that an Advocate Commissioner has to be appointed to note down the present status of the construction. But the Trial Court has passed an order dated 24.11.2014 rejecting the application in I.A.No.1202 of 2014 in O.S.No.487 of 2014. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff has submitted that the Advocate Commissioner could take the assistance of the Surveyor. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that there is no need for the assistance of the Surveyor as the purpose is only to note down the physical features of the suit property, particularly the status of the construction and also to take photographs of the construction. 8. Hence, I am of the view that there is no need for the assistance of the Surveyor as there is no request for measuring the suit property. 9. 8. Hence, I am of the view that there is no need for the assistance of the Surveyor as there is no request for measuring the suit property. 9. In the result, the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur dated 24.11.2014 made in I.A.No.1202 of 2014 in O.S.No.487 of 2014 is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. The Trial Court is directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the status of the construction and also to take photographs in this regard. No cots.