Balasubramanai Bharathi v. Kalirathanm

ORDER The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.111 of 2015 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Manapparai and consequently scarp the Commissioner report, dated 04.07.2011 and appoint a senior Commissioner to re-enquire the schedule property.

¶2The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.111 of 2015. The said suit has been filed by the respondent herein for permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

¶3The petitioner herein had earlier filed I.A.No.273 of 2015, which was dismissed by the trial Court. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed CRP(MD)No.2596 of 2015, which came to be disposed of by this Court on 27.04.2019. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who has now given a report on

30.11.2019. During the interregnum, due to out break of Covid-19 pandemic, the case did not progress. The petitioner appears to have filed an objection on 26.04.2022. Since the report of the Advocate Commissioner was not available to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.2 of 2022, which has been now rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order, dated 23.09.2022. The trial Court has now rejected the application for scrapping the report of the Advocate Commissioner. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under: "6.6. ePjpkd;w Mizah; mwpf;if tiuglk; jhf;fy; nra;jTld; jdJ Ml;Nrgizfis vjph;kDjhuh; jhf;fy; nra;ahky; ,Ue;Jtpl;L fhyk; fle;J ,k;kDtpid jhf;fy;

nra;Js;sJ.

vjph;kDjhuhpd;

myl;rpa Nghf;ifNa fhl;LfpwJ. kDjhuhpd; ,k;kDtpid mDkjpf;f vt;tpj rl;l Kfhe;jpuKk; ,y;iy vd;Nw ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ. ,Wjpahf kD vjph;kDjhuhpd; njhifAld; js;Sgb nra;J cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ."

¶4In my view, there is no scope for appointment of Advocate Commissioner in a dispute where relief is for a permanent injunction. It for the petitioner or the respondent/plaintiff have to merely let any evidence to show that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. The Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence and thereby influence the trial. I.A.No.273 of 2015 was rightly rejected. However, the petitioner was able to secure available orders from this Court on 27.04.2019 in CRP(MD)No.2596 of 2015.

¶5The report of the Advocate Commissioner, dated 30.11.2019 was not available. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2022 to scrap the report. The petitioner has invited the report of the Advocate Commissioner which now apparantly is against the petitioner. It is open for the petitioner to make submissions regarding the incorrectness in the report of the Advocate Commissioner. There is no scope for interfering with the impugned order. In my view, it is open for the petitioner to discredit the report of the Advocate Commissioner, oral and documentary evidence may be required to establish his possession.

¶6The present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

03.04.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn To

1.The Additional District Munsif, Manapparai

2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.SARAVANAN

,J.

SN

03.04.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.04.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and C.M.P(MD)No.3864 of 2023 Balasubramanai Bharathi ... Petitioner/Petitioner/ Defendant Vs. Kali Rathanm ... Respondent/ Respondent/ Plaintiff PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.111 of 2015 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Manapparai and consequently scarp the Commissioner report dated 04.07.2011 and appoint a senior Commissioner to re-enquire the schedule property. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Chellapandian