← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/217/2017dismissed

Balasubramaniam v. Padmanaban

2017-01-27Honourable Mrs Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.01.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA C.R.P.(PD).No.217 of 2017 Mr.Balasubramaniam .. Petitioner Vs.

Mr.Padmanaban .. Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 17.11.2016 made in I.A.No.973 of 2016 in O.S.No.57 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram.

For petitioner : Mr.Christopher Kishore Vincent for M/s.Vincent and Vincent

ORDER

The revision petitioner/plaintiff's application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, had been dismissed by the trial Court. The suit is one for bare injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant whose land is situated on the Southern side of the suit property, is trying to alter the boundaries in the suit property by pulling up the boundary-stones and

also by raising a compound wall, including the petitioner's property. Hence, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features. The said application was resisted by the defendant by contending that the compound wall was constructed even in the year 2002 itself and the suit is filed only in the year 2016. Hence, there is no necessity for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the application, against which, the above revision is filed.

2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff contended that the construction of compound wall was only after filing of the suit and the petitioner is seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to find out actually whether there is compound wall or not and also the age of the compound wall.

3. It is admitted by the defendant that there is a compound wall put up in the year 2002. It is seen that it is some other dispute between the parties that has triggered in filing the suit. But the suit is filed for bare injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. It is only the factum of possession that the plaintiff has to prove in succeeding the suit. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application, with which there is no reason to interference.

4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that

I.A.No.294 of 2016 filed for interim injunction is pending without any order being passed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.294 of 2016 at the earliest. With this direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

27.01.2017 cs Copy to The District Munsif, Tambaram.

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J cs C.R.P.(PD).No.217 of 2017

27.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in