Dhanam)Deceased) v. Paramasivam(Deceased)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.10.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM C.R.P.(NPD) No.2086 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 1.Dhanam(Deceased) 2.Davamani ... Petitioners Vs.

1.Paramasivam(Deceased) 2.Thillaikarasi ... Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr.S.L.Mouli For Respondents : Mr.T.Murugamanickam for R2 PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 16.02.2012 in I.A.No.1315 of 2011 in O.S.No.89 of 2010 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Attur.

O R D E R

The counsel for the petitioners has stated that the suit in O.S.No.89 of 2010 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Attur, was filed by the plaintiffs / petitioners seeking for permanent injunction, not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

2. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1315 of 2011 seeking for the appointment of Commissioner / Advocate to visit and identify the suit property, with the qualified surveyor and measure and fix the four boundaries of the suit property and note down the existing physical features of the suit property and fix the boundary line, in between, the suit property and S.Nos.636/13 and 636/14 (belonging to the defendant) and note down the existing salient features of the suit locality and to submit a report, along with the scale and rough plan.

3. The learned District Munsif, Attur, passed an order, on 16.02.2012, rejecting the petition, on the ground that the prayer sought for by the petitioners will pave way to collect evidences in the suit to establish the case of the plaintiffs and the Court cannot be a party for collection of such evidences, by way of appointment of an Advocate commissioner.

4. It is an established principle that no petition can be entertained by any of the parties for the purpose of collection of evidences or to establish their contentions either in the plaint or in the written statement.

5. This Court is of the opinion that the reason furnished by the Court below is perfectly correct and in accordance with established principles of law.

6. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the order, dated 16.02.2012, passed in I.A.No.1315 of 2011 in O.S.No.89 of 2010 does not require any interference and therefore, the said order stands confirmed. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same has to be dismissed and it is dismissed, accordingly. No Order as to costs. 06.10.2016 vsi2 To The District Munsif, Attur.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

vsi2 C.R.P. (PD) No.2086 of 2012 06.10.2016