VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2023 › High Court of Madras

Manoharan, v. Keerthi Gurunathan

DISMISSED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
5 April 2023
Bench
C. Saravananauthor
Case no.
CRP(MD) 916/2023

Judgment

ORDER This petition has been filed to reverse and set aside the order in I.A.No. 256 of 2020 in O.S.No.279 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Uthamapalayam, dated 27.09.2021.

¶2The petitioner is the first defendant before the Sub Court, Uthamapalayam in O.S.No.279 of 2018 filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein. The suit has been filed for a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

3.In the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.226 of 2020 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to give a report.

4.According to the petitioner, he has made several improvements and he is in possession of the property and therefore it is just necessary for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to give a report.

5.Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:- '13.,Ujug;g[ thjq;fis ghprPypf;ifapy;> kDjhuh;/1k; gpujpthjp jug;gpy; jhth 1tJ yf;f brhj;Jk;> mjw;F tlf;Fg; gf;fk; cs;s 1k; gpujpthjpapd; brhj;Jk; ,ize;J tptrhak; bra;ag;gLfpwJ vd;gija[k;> jz;zPh; vq;fpUe;J bfhz;Ltug;gLfpwJ vd;gija[k; epU:gpf;f ntz;o jhf;fy; bra;Js;s ,k;kDtpw;F vt;tpj Kfhe;jpuKk; ,y;iy vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUjp> ,k;kDit js;Sgo bra;J cj;jutpLfpwJ.'

6.In my view, there is no merits in the application filed by the petitioner for appointing an Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 29 of CPC and it cannot be utilised for collecting evidence. The suit is only for a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner from peaceful possession. By appointing an Advocate Commissioner, the petitioner has attempted to merely collect evidence to establish the possession over the subject property. The Court has rightly rejected the impugned order and therefore, it does not call for any interference.

7.Since there is no merits in the present Petition, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. It stands accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

05.04.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No dss C.SARAVANAN,J. dss To

1.The Subordinate Court, Uthamapalayam.

2.The Record Keeper, V.R Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. and CMP(MD)No.4220 of 2023

05.04.2023

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.04.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and CMP(MD)No.4220 of 2023 Manoharan ... Petitioner/Petitioner/1st Defendant Vs. 1.Keerthi Gurunathan 2.Purushothaman 3.Vikramathithan 4.Munirathnam 5.Ashwath 6.The Tahsildar, Revenue Department, Tahsildar Office, Uthamapalayam Town, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District. 7.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Uthamapalayam Town & Taluk, Theni District. 8.The District Collector, Collectorate Campur, Theni District. ..... Respondents/Respondents/ Plaintiffs and 2 to 6 Defendants PRAYER:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to reverse and set aside the order in I.A.No.256 of 2020 in O.S.No.279 of 2018 on the file of Subordinate Court, Uthamapalayam, dated 27.09.2021. For petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh For R6 to R8 : Mr.M.Sidharthan Additional Government Pleader

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.