Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1105 (MAD)

C. Manoharan v. Aabaranam Amala

2017-04-18

G.JAYACHANDRAN

body2017
ORDER : 1. The suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men or anybody claiming him from making constructions in the item No. 2 of the plaint "B" schedule property. For the said purpose, decree for demarcation demarcating the plaint schedule property by appointing a Commissioner through Court was also sought for. 2. In the course of trial, the Court below has appointed the Advocate Commissioner who had also visited the plaint schedule property and submitted his interim report. The revision petitioner herein unsatisfied with the report, pointing out the holes in his report, has taken out an application for scraping the report of the Commissioner and for directing the Commissioner to re-visit the suit premises and measure the property. 3. After discussing at length the conduct of the revision petitioner refusing to co-operate with the Advocate Commissioner and making allegation against him under one pretext or another, but, in the interest of justice, the Trial Court has allowed his application directing the Commissioner to inspect the suit premises afresh and submit the report. The said order was passed by the Trial Court on 12.11.2011. 4. Despite getting a positive order in his application, the present revision petition is filed on the ground that the Trial Court without considering the events and error committed by the Commissioner, has directed the same Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and submit the report, without scraping the interim report he has already filed. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that it is not fair on the part of the Court to appoint the very same Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property since the Advocate Commissioner is biased against the defendant. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner read through the relevant portion of the typed set filed by the revision petitioner. From which, this Court finds that from the beginning the revision petitioner is putting spokes in the process of Advocate Commissioner's inspection and filing the report. Even in the interim report, he has pointed out minor discrepancies and omissions, as if it has caused grave prejudice to him. 7. The real intention of the revision petitioner is very clear that he does not want the Commissioner to note down the physical feature and place it before the Court. Successfully, from 2011, he has prevented the Court from proceeding further. 7. The real intention of the revision petitioner is very clear that he does not want the Commissioner to note down the physical feature and place it before the Court. Successfully, from 2011, he has prevented the Court from proceeding further. By filing the present revision petition, he has delayed the process of rendering justice. 8. This Court finds no illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court ordering re-inspection of the suit premises by the same Advocate Commissioner. It is not necessary that the earlier interim report should be scraped. If there is any inconsistency between the earlier interim report and the new report to be filed by the Advocate Commissioner pursuant to the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, the Trial Court can reconcile both and arrive at a right conclusion. 9. Since there is no merit in the revision petition and clearly it indicates the abuse of process of law, this Court is constrained to impose cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) payable by the revision petitioner to the respondent forthwith. 10. With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.