Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1842 (MAD)

Subramanian v. Udachi

2017-07-03

T.RAVINDRAN

body2017
ORDER : 1. The respondents/appellants/plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.13 of 2016 seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property with the help of the Surveyor. 2. It is found that the revision petitioner/respondent/defendant had resisted the above said application. 3. However, on a perusal of the order, dated 17.02.2016 passed in I.A.No.13 of 2016, it is found that the revision petitioner/respondent/defendant conceded for the appointment of Advocate Commissioner and accordingly, the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner was ordered. 4. Seeking review of the said order, it is found that the revision petitioner/respondent/defendant had preferred I.A.No.148 of 2016 to review the above said order. The Court below had held that no ground has been made out by the revision petitioner to review the impugned order and accordingly, rejected the application preferred by him. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred. 5. As discussed above, though the revision petitioner/respondent/defendant had resisted the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner initially, subsequently he conceded for the appointment of Advocate Commissioner and accordingly, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. In such view of the matter, it is not open to the revision petitioner to seek for review of the order on the footing that the Commissioner had been directed to inspect the property in T.S.No.5/8, which according to the revision petitioner is not connected with the suit property. If that be so, nothing prevented the revision petitioner from resisting the appointment of Advocate Commissioner throughout. Having conceded for the appointment of Advocate Commissioner, it is not open to him to seek for review of the same on the points already raised by him in the counter. 6. Thus, it is found that none of the criteria adumbrated in Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C., are made out to entertain the review application. 7. In the light of the above reasons, it is found that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and I do not find any ground to entertain the civil revision petition. 8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.