C. Sridharan, v. K.R. Kamalraj,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.07.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Civil Revision Petition (PD) Nos.1869 & 1870 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.9775 of 2016 C.Sridharan S/o.K.S.Chidambaram ... Petitioner in both petitions vs 1.K.R.Kamalraj S/o.K.R.Raveendran @ Ravi 2.K.R.Raveendran S/o.Ramasamy Gounder ... Respondent in both petitions Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders of learned District Munsif, Kangeyam, passed in I.A.Nos.1626 and 1627 of 2015 in O.S.No.195 of 2010 on 06.06.2016. For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Kannan For Respondents :
Mr.P.Valliappan ***** C O M M O N O R D E R These revisions arise against the orders of learned District Munsif, Kangayam, passed in I.A.Nos.1626 and 1627 of 2015 in O.S.No.195 of 2010 on 06.06.2016.
2. Petitioner/plaintiff has moved O.S.No.195 of 2010 on the file of learned District Munsif, Kangeyam, seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and for other consequential reliefs. In such suit, petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.1626 and 1627 of 2015 towards reopening of the case for the purpose of reappointment of Advocate Commissioner and seeking an order appointing the very same Advocate Commissioner who filed his report as per the earlier order dated 30.06.2015. The Court below, under the impugned order, dismissed such petitions.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.
4. In dismissing the applications, the Court has observed as follows: "5.This court has given its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the Ex.C3 to C5 the Commissioner report and plan. In the report the Commissioner has stated that the suit property and the property belongs to the 1st respondent has been measured on the foot of the partition deed dated 11.10.1982 and the sale deed of the 1st respondent dated 25.02.1993. For the said properties, it is stated that, the boundaries have been fixed on the north after measuring the survey stones situated in S.F.357. In such a way it is stated that on all
sides the boundaries have been fixed before measuring the S.F.359/1. In the rough sketch appended to the report drawn by the Taluk Surveyor the portions of the petitioner and the 1st respondent has been depicted separately. Similarly in the rough sketch drawn by the Advocate/Commissioner all the minute details of physical features have been described. On the perusal of the same it is evinced that the materials required for adjudicating the issue involved in this case in the opinion of this court is brought on record. Further the contention that the Exs.C3, C4 and C5 do not render any aid to the court for proper adjudication is liable to be rejected as it is falling in the domain of this court to decide it.
6. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble High Court has directed this court to dispose this case by granting two more months time with a specific direction that no prayer for further extension of time shall be entertained vide its communication dated 26.04.2016, and the same was received by this court on 05.05.2016. As the court was on vacation the said communication was seen by the presiding officer on 01.06.2016 the matter was brought to the notice of both side counsels on 04.06.2016 and after hearing arguments of both side it is reserved for orders on 06.06.2016. The main case was posted for pronouncing judgment on 5.11.2015 but on that date these two applications were came to be filed. As per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court the suit has to be disposed of
within 5.07.2016. In the said view of the matter, this court does not find any merits in these two applications."
5. This Court would record that this Court finds no error in the order of the Court below. It is brought to notice that earlier reports had been marked as Exs.C3 to C5 through the petitioner/plaintiff. By way of an additional proof affidavit dated 08.06.2015, the petitioner/plaintiff had informed concurrence therewith. The case stood posted for judgment on 05.11.2015 when I.A.Nos.1626 and 1627 of 2015 have been moved towards reopening of the case for the purpose of reappointment of the very same Advocate Commissioner. Though the case was last posted for judgment on 24.06.2016, the Court below was precluded from passing judgment on such date since as a consequence of entertaining the present revisions, an order of interim stay was passed on 22.06.2016.
The Civil Revision Petitions shall stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15.07.2016 Note to office: Issue order copy on 27.07.2016 Index:yes/no Internet:yes gm
To The District Munsif, Kangeyam.
C.T.SELVAM, J
gm Civil Revision Petition (PD) Nos.1869 & 1870 of 2016 15.07.2016