| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 1736
|
| Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras |
| Case No : C.R.P. No. 2842 of 2022 & C.M.P. Nos. 15385 & 15387 of 2022 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU |
| Parties : A.M. Tamizhvaanan Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by its District Collector, District Collectorate Office, Salem & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: V. Sekar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, V. Ramesh, Government Advocate, Sam Jayaraj, Advocate Commissioner. |
| Date of Judgment : 11-03-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Civil Procedure Code - Section 115 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure
2. Catch Words:
- Civil Revision
- Advocate Commissioner
- Property dispute
- Remuneration
3. Summary:
The Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC seeks to set aside a fair‑and‑decreetal order confirming an earlier order. The petitioner challenged an interlocutory order for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The Court had already appointed the Commissioner, who inspected the property and submitted a detailed report. Observing that the Commissioner’s report suffices, the Court found no need to further adjudicate the matter and closed the revision petition. The report is to be forwarded to the Subordinate Judge for further suit proceedings within six months. The Advocate Commissioner is awarded remuneration of Rs. 15,000 payable by the petitioner, and the warrant issued to him is discharged. No costs are awarded; related miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 25.07.2022 in C.M.A.No. 2 of 2021 on the file of the Sub-Court, Mettur, confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 25.10.2021 in I.A.No. 3 of 2019 in O.S.No. 154 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettur.)
1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 25.07.2022 in C.M.A.No. 2 of 2021 on the file of the Sub Court, Mettur, confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 25.10.2021 in I.A.No. 3 of 2019 in O.S.No. 154 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettur.
2. Heard Mr.V.Sekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Ramesh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and also heard Mr.Sam Jayaraj, learned Advocate Commissioner.
3. This revision petition has been filed, challenging the order passed in the Interlocutory Application, wherein the petitioner had sought for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. This Court takes notice of the fact that, pending the revision petition, this Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner, who had inspected the property and had also filed a detailed report, which has been placed on record.
4. This Court, while appointing the Advocate Commissioner, by its order dated 30.10.2024, had noted that the rival claim relates to the suit passage and to give quietus to the issue, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and note down the physical features, with specific reference as to whether there are any other alternate pathways to reach the property other than the suit pathway.
5. Since the Advocate Commissioner had already been appointed by this Court, who had inspected the property and filed a report, this Court is of the view that there will be no further necessity to adjudicate upon the issue that is the subject matter of the revision in the suit. In such view of the matter, this revision petition stands closed.
6. However, considering the fact that a report has been filed by the learned Advocate Commissioner before this Court, Registry is directed to forward the said report, which has been filed in SR.No.45175 of 2024 dated 22.11.2024 along with a copy of this order, to the learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur, who shall take the Advocate Commissioner’s report as a report filed before the Court in I.A.No.154 of 2019 and proceed further with the suit within a period of six (6) months, as the suit had been filed as early as in the year 2019.
7. This Court also appreciates the manner in which the learned Advocate Commissioner had executed the warrant and holds that he is entitled for further remuneration of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) payable by the petitioner. The warrant issued to the learned Advocate Commissioner shall stand discharged.
8. If the petitioner or the respondents wishes to examine the learned Advocate Commissioner, the same can be done by issuing necessary Subpoena to the learned Advocate Commissioner. When he appears before the Court, he shall also be entitled for the cost of travel and stay for appearing before the Court.
9. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
|
| |
