Nagalingam, v. Natarajan,

ORDER The present civil revision petition has been filed against the impugned fair and decreetal order, dated 15.02.2023 I.A No.2 of 2022 in O.S No.49 of 2021 by the District Munsif, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶2The petitioner is the plaintiff before the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai in O.S.No.49 of 2021. The suit has been filed for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent/defendant from interfering with the access to the water sources/canal in land in S.No.190/3.

¶3According to the petitioner, the petitioner's land is situated on the eastern side of the canal and the respondent/defendant's land is situated on the western side. It is submitted that the canal measures approximately 50 cents in S.No.190/3, which belongs to the Government, whereas the defendant is claiming the entire land including canal area belongs to the respondent/defendant and about 33 cents of land gifted to the Government by a gift deed, dated 13.10.2021.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that there is a necessity for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to give report on the physical features of the land. On the other hand, the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner stating that in a suit for permanent injunction, appointment of Advocate Commissioner cannot be countenanced. It is for the plaintiff to prove the case by let any oral and documentary evidence.

¶5I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: "6. jhth mry; tof;fhdJ epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuk; Nfhhp jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. kDjhuh; jug;gpy;> jhth nrhj;jhf rh;Nt vz;.190/3 Rkhh; 25 nrz;il ehd; 50 tUlq;fSf;F Nkyhf mDgt ghj;jpa mbg;gilapy; mDgtpj;J tUtjhfTk;> vjph;kDjhuh/gpujpthjp jhth nrhj;J jdf;F ghj;jpakhdJ vd nrhe;jk; nfhz;lhb tUtjhy;>

jhthr;

nrhj;J

jd;Dila mDgtj;jpy; ,Ug;gij ep&gpf;f Ntz;baJ mtrpakhf cs;sJ vd;W thjplg;gl;bUg;gpDk;> Mdhy; epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuj;ij nghWj;Jtiu thjpNa jhth nrhj;jpy; cs;sjhf nrhy;yg;gLk; jdJ mDgtj;ij jf;f rhl;rpfs; kw;Wk; rhd;whtzq;fs; thapyhf ep&gpf;f Ntz;Lk;. NkYk; ePjpkd;w Mizahpd; mwpf;ifapd; mbg;gilapy;> xU eghpd; RthjPd mDgtk; Fwpj;J ve;j xU KbTf;Fk; tu KbahJ kw;Wk; $lhJ> rhl;rpaq;fis jpul;Ltjw;F ePjpkd;w Mizah; epakdk; nra;ag;glf;$lhJ vd ekJ khz;GkpF Nkyij ePjpkd;wk; gy tof;Ffspy; Kd;jPh;g;G mspj;Js;sJ. vdNt Nkw;fz;l fhuzq;fspd; mbg;gilapYk;

kDjhuh;

jug;gpy;

$wpa fhuzkhdJ

,e;ePjpkd;wk;

Vw;Wf;nfhs;sj;jf;fjhf mikahjjhYk;> vdNt ePjpapd; eyd; fUjp ,k;kD mDkjpf;fjf;fjy;y vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; KbT nra;fpwJ."

¶6The defendant in the written statement has also disputed the claim of the petitioner over the land. The relevant portion from the written statement of the defendant reads as under: "6....mt;thW

gpujpthjpf;F

ghj;jpakhd gl;lh ,lj;jpNyNa jhd; Fsf;fhy; cs;sJ. NkYk; Nkw;gb nrhj;jpy; Nkw;Nf Ntk;gdp fpuhkj;jpypUe;J kuf;fhj;Jhh; nry;tjw;fhf nghJkf;fSk; neLq;fhyk; ghijahf Goq;fp te;jhh;fs;. mij ghijf;fhf tpl;Lf; nfhLf;Fk;gb nghJ kf;fSk; Cuhl;rpkd;w jiytUk; Nfl;Lf;nfhz;ljw;fpzq;f gpujpthjpf;F ghj;jpakhd Gy vz.190/3y; nkhj;j tp];jPuzj;jpy; Mifaw; fpof;Nf Rkhh; 33 nrz;L ,lj;ij fle;j 13.10.2021y; murhq;fj;jpw;F

,dhk;

fpiuag;gj;jpuk;

%yk; ghj;jpag;gLj;jp nfhLj;J jw;NghJ mJ nghJ kf;fshy; ghijahf Goq;fg;gl;L tUfpwJ. mt;thW ghijf;fhf tpl;Lf; nfhLj;j 35 nrz;L ePq;fyhf ghf;fp cs;s tp];jPuzk; KOtJk; ,e;j eph; gpujpthjpapd; mDgtj;jpNyNa ehsJ Njjp tiu cs;sJ."

¶7In my view, the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not call for any interference as the law is well settled on the subject. The petitioner is filed a suit for permanent injunction and not for declaration. Only if there is a dispute relating to the boundaries and physical features of the land a report can be called for from an Advocate Commissioner. As such it is not the case, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.

¶8Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with the above observations. However, there shall be a direction to the District Munsif Court to expedite the proceedings in O.S.No.49 of 2021. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

29.03.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn To

1.The District Munsif, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District

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

,J.

SN

29.03.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.03.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and C.M.P(MD) No.3927 of 2023 Nagalingam ...Petitioner/Petitioner/ Plaintiff Vs. Natarajan ...Respondent/Respondent/ Defendant PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed by the Learned District Munsif, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District in I.A No.2 of 2022 in O.S No.49 of 2021, dated 15.02.2023 and allow the petition as prayed to appoint the advocate commissioner. For Petitioner : M/s.P.Rohini