Amala Marie Rani @ Marie v. Jayamarie Manimegalai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.06.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN C.R.P.(P.D).No.4064 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 Amala Marie Rani @ Marie Amala Rani

...Petitioner

Vs 1.Jayamarie Manimegalai 2.Amirda Marie Therasa

...Respondents

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 14.06.2012 made in I.A.No.2773 of 2011 in O.S.No.955 of 2009 on the file of the Learned Principal District Munsif Court, Pondicherry. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sumithra For Respondents : Mr.S.Sathiachandran for R1 R2 - No Appearance

O R D E R

The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The trial Court, pursuant to the said application,

appointed Advocate Commissioner. The Commissioner inspected the property and submitted his report on 16 October 2010. The petitioner, long thereafter, filed an application in I.A.No.2773 of 2011 to direct the Commissioner to inspect the property once again and submit a fresh report. The application was opposed by the respondents.

2. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application by order dated 14 June 2011. The said order is under challenge in this civil revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner was initially filed by the petitioner. It is a matter of record that the Advocate Commissioner inspected the suit property and thereafter, filed report on 16 October 2010. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner submitted her objection to the report. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not taken any action for a period of eleven months after filing report by the Advocate Commissioner. It was only in September 2011, the petitioner has come up with the application in I.A.No.2773 of 2011 with a grievance that the Advocate Commissioner failed to note down certain

physical features. In case, the petitioner was of the view that certain features were not taken note of by the Advocate Commissioner, she should have filed objection to the report. Even if objection was not filed, still the petitioner was expected to file an application within a reasonable time. The fact that the petitioner filed application after a period of eleven months itself shows that she was collecting facts for the purpose of reissuing the warrant. The order passed by the learned trial Judge contain sufficient reasons justifying the ultimate finding. I am, therefore, of the view that the order is unassailable. In the upshot, I dismiss the civil revision petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 22.06.2016 dna/gms To The Principal District Munsif Court, Pondicherry.

K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.

dna C.R.P.(P.D.) No.4064 of 2012 22.06.2017